Creationist Ken Ham Embarrasses Himself Trying to Explain Why Aliens Can’t Exist

god-talking-to-ken-hamWhen it comes to creationism, space poses a bit of a conundrum.  See, space is massive – obviously.  Their whole “6,000 year theory” on existence doesn’t mesh with, well, anything found in science.  Six thousand light years from Earth doesn’t even get us that far away from our own planet, let alone to the other side of our own galaxy or even deeper space.

Even something as commonly accepted as light speed pretty much debunks creationism.

And one of the biggest fears creationists have is that we might one day discover life on other planets.  Because by doing so, it would essentially debunk most of the Bible and everything that they believe about life and how Earth was created.

Even though science has already been doing that for years.

Well, one of the most well known creationists, Ken Ham, decided to tackle the issue of life on other planets recently and the results are, well – let’s just say the stupid is strong with this one.

Ham said:

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!

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. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin — the Savior of mankind.

So, according to Ham, the search for life outside our planet is just some elaborate scientific desire to rebel against God.  I’ll just let the stupidity of that statement stand on its own.

The second part is where he really went off the deep end.

First he said that aliens can’t exist.  But then he somehow tries to say that if aliens happen to exist they would go to hell because they’re not “Adam’s descendants,” therefore they aren’t allowed to have salvation.

To put that in another way, Ham is someone who believes that God made the entire universe and everything in it.  Yet, if alien life were to exist on other planets, somehow they’re not protected by “salvation” because they couldn’t have been descendants of Adam.  And as we all know, according to creationists, only descendants of Adam are given salvation.

So, either alien life would have had to evolve on its own (debunking creationism), been made by God (debunking most of the Bible in the process) or there would have had to have been another “creator” to create that life (again, debunking much of the Bible).

Do you see why discovering life on other planets is so terrifying for creationists?  Even one of their leaders can’t explain the possibility of alien life without essentially admitting that if it were to be found, their entire belief system would be rendered invalid.

Though I could see some creationists saying, “God/the devil put life on other planets to test our faith!”  Because I’ve honestly had creationists use that “theory” as a way to explain dinosaurs and other fossils that predate 6,000 years.  That they’re all purposely placed here to test our faith.

The level of delusional thinking required to believe in creationism is so deep that I’d love to spend a few hours inside the mind of one of these people, just so that I could see what it’s like to live in a world where reality doesn’t seem to exist.

Though Ham’s rant did prove one thing (besides the fact that he’s out of his mind) – if we were ever to find life on other planets, anyone who would continue trying to defend creationism would look even more foolish than they already do.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • sherry06053

    Ummm…Non-Christian here, and I have a question. What was Adam’s sin and how are we all his descendants? I understand that Eve was there and they are supposed to be the1st humans, but are they saying that because Eve got pregnant, that was Adam’s sin – yet he still gets credit for the rest of the world’s population? What would have happened if Eve never got pregnant? Obviously, I have no idea what is in the bible and I am just curious as to how the story goes.

    • Andrew

      His sin was eating the apple from the tree of knowledge, because as we all know, knowledge is a bad thing for creationists – plus nothing encapsulates the idea of an all-loving god like holding a grudge against mankind for all of eternity for eating an apple…

      • wcraigjohnston

        well… the rest of the Bible uses the verb “to know” to mean “have sex” so the “tree of knowledge” would seem to be that she had sex with Adam. There was a big ol’ snake in that tree, after all.
        Having sex would be Adam and Eve performing a creation act. Therefore they were taking God’s place in creating life on Earth. This would piss off the master, indeed. If God was so pissed, why not kill them off (He destroyed the whole planet by flood later) and start again. He would have only had to kill 2 humans instead of millions, plus all those innocent animals.
        It’s all inconsistent claptrap designed to subjugate the masses. Same old story.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        excellent stuff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        I annoy the religious with:
        when will your all-powerful “GOD” cure an amputee?

      • John Masters

        The take I hear most often is that God’s commandment that they not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, was that God didn’t want them to know everything all at once, but would reveal his creation to them as they were ready. In other words, he wasn’t against them learning, but he had a plan for that learning.

        I replied to the minister explaining it that way, that this sounded precisely like God intending for us to use science. We would gain knowledge and understanding over time, as we were able to embrace that knowledge. Again, an elegant plan on God’s part if you ask me, so why do they reject the possibility.

      • Sunnysmom

        Love it!! Excellent summary of such ridiculous garbage.

    • Melania Gulley

      Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and coerced Adam.. it was forbidden.. eve got painful birth and adam got to have sex..lol

      • disqusser10157

        There’s nothing that suggests Eve coerced Adam. She tempted him (thus putting women in the role of temptress/harlot for the rest of creation, if you buy into this…stuff…), and he gave into the temptation. Likewise, the serpent tempted Eve, and she gave in.

        This actually raises a different issue. If God is omniscient, then He had to know what Adam and Eve would do before He even created the universe. If He knew what they would do before He created them, then they had no choice, no free will. So how could God possibly “judge” Adam and Eve (or any the other humans to follow) for doing what He literally made them to do?

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      im still wondering where cain got a wife???

      • hermanprovi

        …not only, where did he get a wife, how many children did they have to beget, and then those offsprings, would have to indulge in incest to continue to populate the earth! I thought incest was against Gods’ teachings!

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        GOD provided them with cloning techniques which they lost in the noah flood
        =========================================
        hey wait a minute:
        if noahs family was only one to survive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, why do we talk about adam and eve? noah had to be doing some serious incest

      • fja123

        According to the Bible, God created mankind before A&E,telling them to go forth and multiply. It was one of these sub-humans that Cain mated with and formed another tribe. Because of Cain’s parentage, these mutations are still considered “Children of Adam”. A&E also had other children besides C&A, one being Seth, so they were also able to mate with mankind and create all the different variations of Humans there are today. It’s just a theory of mine.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        sounds biblical; but why are a&e’s kids called subhuman?
        variations of humans? since a&e were singular in DNA;( silly rib bone) how did ‘ variations” occur?
        maybe evolution???
        explain “lucy” and australopithicus and Neanderthals?
        NOTE: we are 96% in common DNA wise with apes

      • fja123

        Not A&E’s kids; the spouses of their kids were “sub-human”, for lack of a better word. Variations would have occurred thru these pairings. Perhaps the rest of “mankind” that didn’t mate with Man became today’s primates. Lucy and the others were just earlier, and less “bred” versions of us. It’s a way of combining science and the Bible.
        BTW, I’m not religious. I also believe A&E could have been aliens sent by their leaders (God) to get it ready for colonization, but they did something to piss the leaders off and were left to fend for themselves. The rib story was just a ruse to keep women subservient. If we ever want to be welcomed into the “Kingdom of Heaven” (aka, the Universal neighborhood) we need to show them we can get along with each other beforehand. Doesn’t look very promising at the moment. They threw us a bone with Jesus, but we weren’t listening.

      • disqusser10157

        Incest – otherwise, there were other humans who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        but,,,,,,,,,,,but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but: it was cain and abel!!! the mighty; infallible BIBLE ( see: voodoo) doesn’t mention any female relatives! which- extrapolating of course– means that (a) adam/eve had to pop out a new kid ( hopefully a girl ) which eats up a year,,,,,,then shes gonna have to be at least 12/13 to get knocked up by an aging CAIN,,,and do ya think ol’ adams gonna let the killer of his son ( cain) near his newly flowered daughter??
        no WONDER regressive religious creeps love guns!1

      • disqusser10157

        You left out “incestuous”.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        ahhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        my faux pas!

    • disqusser10157

      According to Genesis, the original sin was Eve’s giving in to the temptation, offered by the serpent, to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge at the center of the Garden of Eden. After she gave into temptation, she then tempted Adam, who, likewise, gave in. Then they both became aware they were naked, and they hid. God basically paid a visit, found them hiding, and realized that they had eaten of the fruit. (There are problems synchronizing this with the idea that God is omniscient, but let’s leave that for another time.) God then banished them from the garden, and told Eve that, from now on, labor and delivery would be outrageously painful. The banishment and the painful labor and delivery give rise to an interesting contradiction, because, before they gave into temptation, God told A&E that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they would “surely die” – and yet, they didn’t.

      Anyway, that’s the story of original sin. There is another person who has posted a comment, below, indicating that he thinks eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was a metaphor for sex, particularly since a man “knowing” a woman in the Old Testament often referred to the two of them having sex. It is an interesting theory, but because I have never heard anyone propose this before, I doubt it is accepted by either Jewish or Christian biblical scholars.

      • fja123

        This is an interesting theory. If the “knowledge” was sex, and God is omniscient, then He would have known that this would happen. So maybe He’s not admonishing them for it, but warning them about what was to come; why else make childbirth the “punishment” for knowledge. It could also explain their “shame” at having their relations found out; more embarrassment over a new experience than guilt. Once again, Man has twisted His words for his own personal agenda of misogyny and subservience.

  • John Masters

    The thing that gets me the most is the whole, “The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!”

    Besides the fact that evolution is already proven, it is this idea they have come to embrace that any attempt at understanding the universe, exploration, scientific study, mere curiosity, are all apparently tools of the devil. Now I’m a Christian, but Ken Ham likely wouldn’t think so. I believe in some sort of creator or creative force that formed the universe. How exactly this creative force accomplished is an astonishing feat of intricacy and massive scale, which will be still be trying to fully understand when it all comes to an end in the way distant future. I believe that creator invites us to discover. Heck, we were created with a natural curiosity. I don’t believe the creator did it in six days six thousand years ago. The biblical accounts (because there are a couple), are nothing more than metaphors written by people trying to explain things which seemed unexplainable.

    We today know better (or at least should), and find creation to be no less remarkable and astonishing because we’ve been able to explain some of the processes. In fact, the elegance of the science behind our universe can only point to a creative force beyond our ability to comprehend. If you want to refer to and understand that force as God, then what an amazing God you would have.

    It is also my belief that it takes a weak form of faith to run from questions and challenges. If the God/Creator that Ken Ham and those of his ilk worship can’t stand up to scientific inquiry, then a weak god they have who is not worthy of worship.

    • Luke

      Well done! This is me clapping.

      • John Masters

        Thank you Luke. It sad that many of us are becoming ashamed to admit we’re Christian because of the likes of Ken Ham.

      • Luke

        Personally, I’ve always been confused why so many have aligned religion and science as mutually exclusive of one another.

        Absent conclusive evidence that there is no God, it would be tough for the two to ever really collide. I’m not even sure how one could ever produce such evidence.

        I do sometimes wonder what type of world we would live in had religion embraced science instead of rejecting it.

      • GCA

        I am not Christian, but I enjoy logical debate and I would be much happier walking away with as much to think about as my opposite. So I was always curious, and never given an answer by those I’ve asked in the creationists realm–why the idea that God could have created evolution, dinosaurs, science–you name it–as a gift to humanity is so repugnant and impossible. A gift to occupy our millions of years on this planet. As a way to understand His workings better and become closer to Him. Science *could* be religions wise sibling, guiding the way to new found discoveries and modern miracles to enhance faith. Instead… we have this. It’s such a shame.

      • John Masters

        I love the concept @GCA, “Science could be religions wise sibling.”

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        it has already happened………….
        GOOGLE ” Marilyn lange” shrine photos

      • disqusser10157

        Agreed. I believe it was Galileo who first said that science tells us how the heavens go, and that religion tells us how to go to heaven. With each institution keeping to its unique function, there is no reason to see the two in conflict.

        I’m an agnostic, and I certainly believe that religion has done a lot of harm, and created a lot of misery and death, for the human race. On the other hand, I’ve seen religion do some very, very good things as well – feeding and housing the poor, providing literacy programs, etc. Seen in its proper role, religion can be a very positive force.

        However, treating the Bible as a science textbook is not one of those proper roles.

      • buricco

        Even the Roman Catholic Church officially accepts the existence of evolution.

      • Luke

        Is it right then that I am confused as to why so many Christians denounce it?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        ken ham is Christian —-
        not according to christs teachings: its according to the ham sandwiches todays schizoid religious cretins are eating
        ==========================================
        the REAL Christians such as you give their best to align with the principles of Christ-

    • Jamroast

      Actually evolution is still a theory but nice post..

      • wcraigjohnston

        You should understand what scientists mean when they say “theory”. You’re thinking of “hypothesis”

      • Luke

        Don’t do that Jamroast. Don’t do the “evolution is still a theory” thing. It just exposes a complete lack of the competence required in the subject matter to participate in the conversation.

      • ChiMeng Chang

        isn’t Gravity also a Theory?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        only to guys such as Michael Jordan and Dominique wilkins

      • Aaron Wantuck

        Yes, it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is different from theory in the colloquial sense. They are two different words with two different definitions. Evolution falls into the Scientific Theory category, not the theory one. Creationists often use this misplay on words to create a straw man argument.

        Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

        Scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

        Strawman argument: a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

      • Anthony John Woo

        Gravity and relativity are also theories, with significantly less physical evidence than evolution. If you’re not willing to apply the same criteria to other generally accepted theories then your argument against evolution is invalid.

      • Luke

        I might be wrong, but Gravity is a law, isn’t it? (Newton’s Law of Gravity)

        It doesn’t change the infinite wrongness of Jamroast, but we have to keep each other honest.

      • Aaron Wantuck

        Yes and no. Gravity has laws in it, however the math and modeling that you know such as the gravitational constant and inverse gravitational theorem are all part of the theory of gravity. Those two things in the theory of gravity allows us to quantify numbers to give it actual meaning our brains can wrap logic around. This in turn allows us to create things using it.

        So for example, those two things I mentioned allow us to calculate the Earth’s Gravitational pull to be 9.8 m/s2. This in turn allows us to construct Cruise ships to calculate the buoyancy vs gravitational force on that opposite force holding the hip afloat. Same with airplanes.

        This is why we know the Theory of Gravity works because it does not break the laws of gravity and yet allows us to create predictable models. Religion/Bible creates no models that produce anything.

        So the way I think about it is like this. Theories are falsifiable based on new evidence and can be changed to correct errors. So if the gravitational equation is found to be wrong it can be corrected. However laws are laws and will never change. New laws can be discovered, but they will never change. Now since theories use laws, you can think of the Theory of Gravity as all the equations and models plus the laws. A super set that includes everything.

        I hope that helps.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        trickle down is a theory. religion is theory
        ==========================================
        evolution has evidences which show it has truth–irrefutable truth– in our existence

      • disqusser10157

        Yes, and here’s the definition of a scientific theory:

        A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

      • Aaron Wantuck

        Yeah if evolution is “just a theory”, then you are “just an ignorant fool” who does not understand anything they profess to have knowledge about.

        You statement is EXACTLY like saying the following:

        If I take the word “tire” it means a round rubber thing on my car. Then if I take the word iron, it can mean a metal found on the periodic table or something I flatten my clothes with. However if I take the word “Tire Iron” it is an object used to remove tires off my car. Separate the words and they have a completely different meaning.

        Now:

        Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

        Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

        Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

        Those are three SEPARATE Words which each have SEPARATE meanings. You can not just mish/mash things and change the definition of something to suit YOU NEEDS so it fulfills some idiotic self gratification.

        Can you guess which category Evolution falls into? I will give you a hint …… SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which REQUIRES EVIDENCE if it did not it would be a THEORY. Yes, Evolution is falsifiable, which means that someone anyone can prove it wrong with evidence and it is able to change with new evidence, if it did not do that and it was written in stone and taken on faith which is the OPPOSITE of evidence, it would be religion.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      the elegance of science— terrific!
      allow me to add: the ignorance of religion
      =======================================
      Im still waiting for ( their all powerful) “GOD” to fully cure an amputee

    • disqusser10157

      Yeah, I had an extended debate with a creationist bozo who insisted that we should stop trying to understand how life arose on this planet. He claimed that Pasteur had “proven” that abiogenesis (life from non-living substances) could not occur, and that since no attempt to explain how life arose had been successful up to this point, and because no effort to create synthetic life had been successful up to this point, it was obviously impossible, and these efforts should be stopped immidiately. It took me a while to figure out that he was terrified that one, the other, or both efforts might eventually be successful, and that any such successes would further undermine creationism’s claim that it accurately describes the origin of the universe.

      I pointed out that, up until the mid-90’s, no efforts to detect planets orbiting other planets had ever been successful, so that , based on his “logic”, we should have abandoned the effort to detect such planets long ago. Indeed, his “logic” suggested that science should not try to discover or understand anything which had not already been discovered and/or understood. He assured me that the exoplanet example was “different”, but he could never really explain why.

    • Aaron Wantuck

      “Besides the fact that evolution is already proven, it is this idea they have come to embrace that any attempt at understanding the universe, exploration, scientific study, mere curiosity, are all apparently tools of the devil”

      This one statement sums everything up and points to what happens when the “bible” and church going fundamentalists rule the decision making process on what is important vs what is not. We ALREADY went through 500 years or so of this type of thinking and it got us nowhere. (The Dark Ages). Imagine how technological advanced we would be today without that period in man’s history. We may have already discovered life and been transversing the stars.

  • BobLoblaw

    The most religious person I know believes we were put here on earth fully formed by aliens. She totally rejects the idea of evolution. She also believes there was a microphone sent down a hole in the earth and screaming was heard.
    She was raised catholic and left them recently because she thought they had to pray too much in order to get into heaven. I asked her if a catholic person told her she would not enter heaven because she didn’t pray enough what would she do? She couldn’t/wouldn’t answer that.

    • Luke

      You should ask her who put the aliens there then.

      mind.
      blown.

      • BobLoblaw

        We have decided to stop talking about religion and politics. We get along great now!! But I will never forget what she said.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        they came from our future :))

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      religion== control/financial windfall( for those in control)
      im ok with GOD(s) as GOD(s) are too big 2 be defined by a finite creature( man)……………
      attempting to FIND “god” is futile and bovaristic ( as is “thinking” we have a splendid afterlife)

    • disqusser10157

      Religion seem to attract delusional people.

  • The Truth Will Out

    Ken Ham is a con artist. He left Australia because he was about to be uncovered. Now he’s taken untold numbers of Americans for millions. Time will tell. Wish I could witness his judgment day.

  • hermanprovi

    I wonder, if Mr. Ham approved of the Supreme Court Justices of the United States “creating” people? They did just that when they ruled that way, about Corporations.

  • AskJohn.com

    Why do these people get media coverage and why is this still being talked about in the 21st century. It is very boring.

  • LL11

    I believe in God and think he created universes full of galaxies and planets and myriad types of life. I see no contradiction.

  • Matthew Reece

    I think aliens have already visited Earth. Upon observing humans, at best they said, “These creatures still have religions and governments; they aren’t ready to join galactic civilization,” and at worst they said, “There is no intelligent life on this planet, and these human things may be too dangerous to be allowed out into the galaxy.”

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      and then,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they googled MARILYN LANGE photos,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and we were saved!

    • Aaron Wantuck

      Well that is one hypothesis. I would not think they say there is still religion and governments though. For all we know those are human concepts and since they would have evolved under different conditions, who know what their system of “government” or beliefs based on faith are? They could have said, you know, these government things if done right are actually pretty good. We can adopt it.

      You also assume that they are “peaceful” and that galactic civilizations are all peaceful. Typically if someone shows up on our planet not from this planet we will become extinct since we would not have the tech to fight them off. In the peaceful scenario like on Star Trek, they would walk around and realize that we have not developed yet to do interstellar travel and would come back later when we do.

      Think about this also, observation of a developing “primitive” species can have great insight into your own development as an advanced species. So they may be observing us now from a distance with tech we would not understand yet.

  • Emil Kamar

    So, is he stating that god’s power is limited? I mean, if god were real, wouldn’t he be able to create life anywhere he wanted? By saying that humans are the only intelligent life out there, not only is the religion limiting their own god’s power, but they are also stating that they know god’s plans. Hmmm.

  • Stephen Barlow

    QUIT butt wiping!!!

  • disqusser10157

    One thing I have never really understood is the idea that life on other planets would debunk the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say anything about other planets, and it doesn’t say that Earth is the only place in the universe where God created life. (This is true, in part, because the people who wrote the Bible were unaware that stars were suns, that the planets we can see in our sky are other worlds, and that other stars also have planets orbiting around them.) Since the Bible is simply silent on these subjects, why would finding life on other planets “contradict” or “debunk” the Bible?

    I should add that I’m an agnostic who became an agnostic, in part, because of my study of the Bible. Consequently, I’m not defending the Bible – far from it. I just don’t understand why both the creationists and the people who write columns like this one think that life on other planets (and, specifically, intelligent life on other planets) would contradict the Bible.

  • Jai Sins

    Evolution is proven. It’s only whacky birds like Hammy boy that don’t get it. That or else he is trolling like motherfucker.

    • Jai Sins

      The funny thing is I consider myself an Atheist but am probably more Christian than most Christian people.

  • CessnaPilot

    When Jesus left earth he said he had sheep in other folds. Maybe on a planet light years away?

  • joshzzz

    Man’s body is more complex than we could have ever imagined as the same is for every living creature on earth. The same goes for that of any micro-organism. Nothing man has made even comes remotely close. Yet, some scientists claim that everything in the universe was created not by a superior being whose intelligence is far, far beyond anything that we could have ever imagined but they believe the creator wasn’t even as intelligent as the most foolish man, not even a child but that the universe in all its majesty was created by an absolute idiot, that nothing, created everything.