Despite Mike Vinson's assertion that only he and his IWWB group preach the truth of the word of God, and that every other group/denomination has "not a single doctrine" correct (direct quote: "Orthodox Christianity is contradiction, every single doctrine they have is a contradiction of the word of God"),the simple facts are that Vinson relies heavily on the core tenets of Christian fundamentalism, and shares many of his deeply held beliefs with tens and hundreds of thousands of Christians, the world over.
I have recently been following the lunacy that is Answers in Genesis, the apparent brainchild of Christian fundamentalist, and Planet of the Apes look-alike, Ken Ham, also known in some circles as "Canned Ham."
Ham's particular theological chestnut is that the scientific community is wrong about the age of the earth, the origins of man, radio-carbon dating methods, and virtually all other key scientific milestones.
Ham has even used one of Mike Vinson's "go-to" lines: that the bible is a history book. Here is a screen grab from Ham's heavily populated FaceBook page -
You see, like Mike Vinson of IWWB, Ham wants to insist that the bible is just as much a history book and a scientific go-to, as it is an inspired spiritual text. So despite Vinson's lame overstate, it's clear that he and brother Ham share many of the same doctrines when it comes to this topic.
The Wikipedia page on AiG (Answers in Genesis) has this to say about Mr Ham's group:
Answers in Genesis rejects modern scientific consensus on archeology, cosmology, geology, linguistics, palaeontology and evolutionary biology in favor of a worldview which sees the universe, the Earth and life originating about 6,000 years ago. AiG claims their views of origins, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, define what should be considered good scienceLike Mike Vinson, Ham wants to insist that Noah really did build a wooden ark, housing all of the "kinds" of animals (a semantic "reach-around" designed to avoid the scientific classification of species) along with teaching that the Genesis creation account is a literal 24-hour "blow by blow" of what actually took place.
Really though, should the bible should be taken literally, wherever and whenever possible? Is it reasonable to do this? I've often said that if the bible contained stories of 3 headed giants, leprechauns and aliens from outer space, Vinson (along with Ham) would insist you take those things literally as well!
Science guy Bill Nye recently debated Ham in his "facility" at the Creation Museum. The event was widely televised but I only got around to watching it recently. In my opinion, Nye decidedly destroyed Ham's position by presenting his facts salinity and logically. Ham on the other hand could only trot out a few of his creation science buddies who had PhD's and of course, yes you guessed it - thump the bible.
I took an audio grab of one particular point Nye was making and remarked to myself that Ham's position and logic is in all points, straight out of the Mike Vinson school of bullshit and mind control. Listen to Nye, he asks: "is it reasonable" to assume the position of Ham and Vinson. Indeed. Is it? Here it is:
Nye also destroyed Ham's argument of a literal Noah's Ark, showing it up for the fairy-tale nonsense that it is:
How does someone like Mike Vinson, or Ken Ham reply to this?
Neither Ham nor Vinson can seriously answer the arguments of Nye, or those who rely on logic rather than faith to inform their world view. All that Vinson or Ham can do is to simply restate their position, and thump the bible whilst trying to impute motive to their questioner. Ham repeatedly said that science had been hijacked by secular humanism.
Vinson of course goes much further than that by stating that those who are not in his group are under the influence of Satan, blinded to the truths of God, the likes of which will be subservient to him and his dick-leader elders in the so-called millennium.
The sad thing is, both Vinson and Ham are living in a delusory state - both men (and their followers) have suspended rational thought in exchange for belief in a book that archaeology cannot confirm and in which the authors names are not even known.
Ham, (like Mitch "Bitch" Kuhn) also subscribes to the ridiculous notion that Moses authored Genesis, a claim I have both covered and refuted before.
So yes, be assured that when Mike Vinson begins to lament scientific method in favour of his fantastical, masturbatory bible-based world-view, he really is, "flogging the Ham."
