Ignorant Ken Ham
Feb 05, 2003 13:11 PST
If you have the time, check out Ken Ham's book called, "Why Won't They|
Listen?" I read the entire book in less than 2 days. It was incredibly
I hope he has a better grasp on science than you do.
Ken Ham, unfortunately, does not seem to know any more about science or the
bible than poor Jason. There is a review of Ken Ham's pathetic book
"Dinosaurs and the Bible" at:
Some of the reviewer's comments:
| ||Section 4: What Makes Dinosaurs "Different?"
In one sentence, he [Ham] reveals exactly how little he knows about
much the same reason that it's impossible to distinguish my sister from other
"Other than the huge size of some dinosaurs, the major feature that really |
distinguishes dinosaurs from other reptiles (such as crocodiles) is the
position of their limbs."
It would be impossible to distinguish dinosaurs from other reptiles, for
fungus. It simply isn't a sensible claim. My sister isn't a fungus, dinosaurs
weren't reptiles. Also, he fails to mention the numerous other characters,
such as skull, wrist and hip structure, that distinguish dinosaurs. Of
course, all of those make them seem a lot like birds......
...On the other hand, again we have Ken applying a standard of truth
(absolute proof) that he would never dream of applying to his own ideas:
| ||"Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of |
them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into
Like so many creationists, Ken puts the cart before the horse. One hundred
and fifty years ago, creationist scientists tried desperately to fit the
evidence into their creationist story.
They failed, and had to find another one. Ken, of course, won't mention this
fact. It wasn't evolutionists who created evolution, it was creationists who
couldn't reconcile the facts with their beliefs. I wonder why Ken doesn't
bring this up?
Next, Ken says that if we add up all the begats, and assume that Jesus was
born in A.D. 1, then the earth is about 6000 years old. Still no non-biblical
evidence for anything in this "creation science."
"Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within
the past thousands of years."
Gee, no wishy-washy "believing" or "stories" or "ideas" here. The Bible is
right, so there! Of course, if the Bible is right, then Judas died in two
completely contradictory ways on an earth that is flat and doesn't move. It's
not; deal with it.
Section 7: Where did Dinosaurs Come From?
"Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They
imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to
become a different kind of animal."
Notice the word choice again. Scientists "imagine" and "claim." Compare them
with the creationist words later.
"This would mean, of course, that there would have to have been millions of
creatures during that time that would be "in between," as amphibians
evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these "transitional forms" should be
And is. Check out <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1">Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)</A> if
you don't believe me.
He gives no reason to reject these as transitionals, he simply asserts that
there are not any, and gives us the following:
"However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable
transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found
No references to check on any of these supposed experts is given. Every one
of the quotes that purport to show this that I've seen from creationists have
proven to be:
1. Taken out of context, really discussing something else.
2. Out of date by over fifty years.
3. Referring to the species/species problem nicely solved by allopatric
4. Out and out falsehoods.
"In fact, if you go to a museum, you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are
100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75% or even
99% dinosaurs--they are all 100% dinosaur!"
This is completely untrue. Thecodonts are 50% reptile and 50% dinosaur,
completely contradicting this claim. In fact, nearly every single group of
vertebrates shows such partial transitions. No evidence is given to reject
these transitions, only the assertion that they don't exist. See <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">Transitional
Vertebrate Fossils FAQ</A> for a large number of other transitional forms that
creationists deny without reason.
Having ignored hundreds of thousands of fossils for no reason other than he
doesn't like them, he goes on to claim that creationists expect exactly what
they see. (Probably true, they've got blinders on that don't let them see
anything they don't expect.)
The section ends with:
"Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs."
Note that "declare" implies that scientists are just making this stuff up.
Again, none of the evidence for that declaration is discussed, only an
assertion that it is wrong.
| ||Section 8: What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
Apparently, God, in his infinite wisdom, gave the sabre toothed tiger really
long fangs and powerful running muscles so that it could take down and kill
wild bananas. It certainly wasn't for killing animals, since everything ate
plants at the time of creation.
This claim has got to be one of the silliest that creationists make, yet here
it is, presented without a scrap of evidence to support it. The Bible says so
(sort of) so it must be true.
So, if God made all these carnivores, we have to ask why. The only thing that
I can think of would be if God expected us to eat the apple, in which case
the whole thing is a case of God setting us up for a fall. My God is much
nicer than the fundamentalist God, who makes animals designed for eating
meat, with teeth unable to adequately chew plants, and then requires them to
Section 9: Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?
Much of Noah's Flood is discussed. No attempt to answer the question, "Why do
we find the dinosaur fossils in layers that don't have any human fossils if
they were living together?" is made. In fact, no attempt to justify the order
of the fossil record is made at all. Needless to say, all the other evidence
for evolution, genetics, biogeographics, comparative anatomy, vestigial
organs, etc. etc. is ignored completely.
He does claim that other fossil layers have been laid down since the flood,
but we are given no clue to how we tell pre-flood layers from post flood
Section 10: Have Dinosaurs lived in Recent Times?
Well, since dinosaurs were on the ark, they must have lived in recent times,
right? We are told that the behemoth mentioned in Job was a dinosaur. No
non-biblical evidence is presented.
Section 11: Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in Ancient Literature?
According to Ken Ham, yes. That is, if you pretend that all references to
dragons are dinosaurs, then they are. Fire breathing Tyrannosaurs, anyone?
"Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around
the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with
people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of
these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe
dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus."
Really? Name one description of a dragon anywhere in history that could be
mistaken for a Tyrannosaurus. I am very fond of mythology and have read quite
a bit of it, and I have never once encountered a description of a creature
that could be mistaken for a dinosaur.
We get a picture of Saint George fighting a Baryonyx and an Elasmosaurus in
Loch Ness. No evidence.
"Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists.
Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at
the same time."
Sure, of course, the same documents describe encounters with fairies and
pagan gods. Since creationists expect us to believe in dragons based on those
old documents, I guess we have to accept that the evidence for Zeus and Odin
is just as good.
Section 12: What Happened to the Dinosaurs?
"Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this
Sure we do. Then we go out and look for evidence. This can be compared with
the creationists who can't use their imagination and don't look for evidence.
"Because of their belief that dinosaurs 'ruled' the world for millions of
years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved,
they have to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain the 'mysterious'
Gee, it's not because there are no fossils of humans and dinosaurs that we
believe they didn't live together. Oh no, it's because we're all committed to
our evolutionary paradigm. So, scientists imagine and guess.
He then presents a "small list of theories" as to why evolutionists say
"Dinosaurs starved to death--or they died from overeating; they were
poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals
ate their eggs. Other causes include--volcanic dust, poisonous gases,
comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites,
shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the
composition of air, etc." (sic)
The most impressive thing about this list is that only three of the items on
it have ever been seriously suggested by scientists in my experience. The
claim of "mass suicide" only shows how desperate creationists are to find
something silly to put in the list. Why not suggest alien big game hunters? I
saw that in "Fox Trot", which has more validity than mass suicide has.
"It is obvious that evolutionists don't know what happened and are grasping
Obvious until you read real scientific literature and look at real evidence.
Meanwhile, creationists can't even manage to grasp at straws. Where is the
explanation for how the fossil record is sorted?
Ham goes on to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs from a creationist
"At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some
How any of them managed to survive is not explained. At most, only a handful
could have survived, not the teeming diversity we see today. Coral, as only
one example, should have been totally wiped out by the Flood. No explanations
for why it's still around have been forthcoming from creationists.
"In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the
representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new
world after the Flood."
No explanation is given for how plants survived. Indeed, Ham seems to realize
that the plants should be dead:
that was no longer in abundance, ... "
"Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much
different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food
even a little while, and then only by eating the other ark animals and
Or, indeed, existent at all. Only the carnivores could have made it for
starving once they'd run out of them. That's not even counting the problems
that parasite survival poses to this preposterous nonsense.
anything, but creationists are good good GOOD for suggesting that there may
" ... (2) other catastrophes, ... "
Remember, scientists are bad bad BAD for using their imaginations for
have been some other unknown catastrophes. Double standard sticking in your
" ... (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the
destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died
But the question is, how did any survive? And what about plants?
Consider for a second the case of the poor Indian Pipe. Indian Pipe is a very
unusual plant found here in Florida. It has no chlorophyll, and lives in a
symbiotic relationship with a certain fungus. The fungus lives only on the
roots of certain trees. In order to grow, the Indian Pipe seed has to fall on
ground already permeated by the fungus, which has to have adult trees growing
to live on. Indian Pipe seeds and fungal spores wouldn't have survived long
enough for adult trees to regrow after the flood.
In short, Indian Pipe should be extinct. It's not. And this is only one of
millions of similar examples that exist around the globe. Is it any wonder
that creationists avoid the subject of plants like the plague?
Section 13: Will We Ever See a Live Dinosaur?
The first paragraph admits, probably not, then claims that natives in many
parts of the world have described dinosaurs. Of course, they also describe
pagan gods and all kinds of fairy creatures, but the creationists would like
you to ignore this in favor of simply accepting their testimony.
The second paragraph in the section, however, is easily the funniest in the
book. I present it in its entirety:
"Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living
dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made
dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I
suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow
survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for
millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it
is to evolutionists' ideas, they will always be able to concoct an "answer"
because evolution is a belief. It is not science--it is not fact!!"
Oh, yeah, it's the evolutionists who can concoct an answer to anything!
First, the paragraph is a blatant falsehood. Short of invoking time travel,
evolution (really common descent, but by this point I can't imagine why I
should be surprised that a creationist can't use the terms correctly) would
be unable to explain a human fossil in Precambrian rocks. So, it is possible
to find something that an evolutionist cannot concoct an answer for.
Now, let's look at creationism. I have asked again and again for a
creationist to give us some hypothetical piece of evidence that would
disprove creationism. None has ever tried to do this. The simple fact is,
absolutely anything can be accepted under creationism simply by invoking the
panacea "God dunnit." Why does the world look 4.5 billion years old? God
dunnit. Why do we see light from stars over 6000 light years away? God
So, by Ken Ham's own claims, creationism is not a science and is not a fact.
Thanks, Ken, but we knew that already.
The section ends with a graphic showing a scale. In one pan is a block that
says "evolution." It's crumbling and very light. The other pan has a nice
solid block that says "creationism," which clearly weighs more than the
evolution block. I can only conclude that this is using the Egyptian belief
that the heavier the soul, the more sinful and evil it was. Creationism has
clearly fallen short of evolution in this graphic.Section 14: What Lessons
Can We Learn From The Dinosaurs?
Nothing. You can't learn moral lessons from nature, since nature is
inherently amoral. This isn't good enough for Ham. Fundamentalists have to
find lessons in everything (except, apparently, the lesson that the world is
older than 6000 years). He has to find lessons about God in the dinosaurs.
How does he do it? Well, actually, he doesn't. Only the first three
paragraphs even mention dinosaurs. The remaining three pages of text
completely forget about dinosaurs and start preaching about redemption and
Jesus. So, what was it doing in a chapter called "What Lessons Can We Learn
From Dinosaurs?" Got me. Ask Ken Ham.
What evidence does Ken Ham present for creationism? Well, the Bible, and, um,
well, some old texts that mention dragons that could, maybe, sort of, be kind
of like dinosaurs, and, well, the myths of a few tribes of natives. That's
What evidence does he present against evolution? Well, lies. That's it. He
lies about the existence of transitional fossils. He also lies by omission by
ignoring massive amounts of evidence with his "well, nobody saw them, did
In short, completely vapid. Who was it who was telling me that Ken Ham was
such a good spokesman? Get real.
---------------end of review-------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]