As claimed by Ken Ham

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:22 am

How many species of dinosaur allegedly went mysteriously extinct within the last 5,000 years despite the absence of any known major worldwide or major regional environmental catastrophe? According to Mr Ken Ham.

Several hundred it would appear.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html

Ham would of course deny that the worldwide flood he believes in led to any widespread extinctions of dinosaurs. The ark is supposed to have saved every 'kind' of land animal so that when the judgment was over the Earth could be 're-populated'.

Thus YECs must invent some other causes - or ignore the problem.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:16 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:How many species of dinosaur allegedly went mysteriously extinct within the last 5,000 years despite the absence of any known major worldwide or major regional environmental catastrophe? According to Mr Ken Ham.



If you want evidence that Big Ken Scam#s "science" is a crock of sh*t, read his claim that he is not a global warming denier. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... nd-aliens/

It's just incoherent garbage.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:09 pm

I always found it strange that no SPECIES we consider prehistoric survived after the flood.

I stress the term "species", as opposed to "kind".
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:48 pm

Slightly odd that it would appear that not one single dinosaur species has survived extinction.

Though of course much less so if you can find evidence that all the dinosaur species that were still extant at the time were rapidly or gradually wiped out by a planet-wide catastrophe much much longer ago than the last 5,000 years. A catastrophe that became an extinction event for much of the life at the time (land creature 'kinds' were intended to survive the Genesis flood). A catastrophe that did not affect humanity and some other species found today - for the simple reason that they had not yet appeared on the planet. If the last of the dinosaurs were wiped out by (mostly) the impact of a comet or asteroid in Mexico, humanity certainly has no collective memory or historical record of being affected by such an event. But then it has been dated at around 65 or 66 million years ago.

This would help explain why the pattern of what has gone extinct and what has not is not purely random in terms of the type of creature (and there is no obvious correlation with either how unintelligent or poorly adapted for running uphill the land creature in question was).

I'll read Peter's comment now.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:53 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:How many species of dinosaur allegedly went mysteriously extinct within the last 5,000 years despite the absence of any known major worldwide or major regional environmental catastrophe? According to Mr Ken Ham.



If you want evidence that Big Ken Scam#s "science" is a crock of sh*t, read his claim that he is not a global warming denier. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... nd-aliens/

It's just incoherent garbage.



I had a go at that one HERE:
https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.co ... /#comments

On Peter's comment, one could argue that two species of coelacanth survive beyond 4,500 years ago (but the Bible does not say that fish were meant to be either killed or spared during the flood of Noah). YECs would like a dinosaur 'living fossil' I dare say. (Or failing that a plesiosaur somehow still surviving in Loch Ness.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:17 pm

It was either Sibley or Garner that drew my attention to crocodiles, which were around prior to the KT extinction event and still survive today.

However, the species alive today are entirely different to those alive 65 million years ago.

Hence my use of the term species as opposed to "kind".

Clearly Noah had "kinds" of crocodiles on the ark
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:26 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
Yes I understand that today's coelacanths are somewhat different to the extinct 'originals'. So it's correct that the 'kind' (genus maybe) survives.


IIRC both the current species live at medium depths and, fully grown, are nearly 2 metres long. Cretacious and pre-cretacious species were shallow water marine and, typically, filled the niches held today by modern fish. They were typically about the size of mackeral. BTW I've seen it claimed that today's two species of coelacanths are disgusting to eat.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:08 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:It was either Sibley or Garner that drew my attention to crocodiles, which were around prior to the KT extinction event and still survive today.

However, the species alive today are entirely different to those alive 65 million years ago.

Hence my use of the term species as opposed to "kind".

Clearly Noah had "kinds" of crocodiles on the ark



Yes I understand that today's coelacanths are somewhat different to the extinct 'originals'. So it's correct that the 'kind' (genus maybe) survives.


So they aren't what we would really call "prehistoric" Ashley, despite YECs referring to them as "living fossils".

It's not just dinosaurs either. Mammals became very big after the KT extinction event None of the prehistoric mammals exist today. I've often wondered why YECs never, ever, think of these problems, and why the only species mentioned in the bible are contemporary ones indigenous to the middle east (and maybe a bit further afield).
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:02 am

Peter Henderson wrote:[So they aren't what we would really call "prehistoric" Ashley, despite YECs referring to them as "living fossils".


Indeed. There are currently only two species and they are the only two of the genus known. The genus is unknown in the fossil record.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:13 pm

Something WEIRD has been happening (unless it's just my pc). The comment timed at 22.26 pm on 27 Nov was not by me!

Having checked back by searching through my own posts, I believe I commented as follows:
"Yes I understand that today's coelacanths are somewhat different to the extinct 'originals'. So it's correct that the 'kind' (genus maybe) survives."

I think then Peter must have replied quoting my post and then writing:
"IIRC both the current species live at medium depths and, fully grown, are nearly 2 metres long. Cretacious and pre-cretacious species were shallow water marine and, typically, filled the niches held today by modern fish. They were typically about the size of mackeral. BTW I've seen it claimed that today's two species of coelacanths are disgusting to eat."

The two posts seem to have become 'fused together' somehow. The post at 22.26 must be Peter's post quoting me and NOT my post quoting him ...

Moving on from that, and on Peter's post at 2.08 am on 28 Nov. I think the first (now extinct) coelacanths are considered pretty ancient (the topic also came up on an Amazon.com thread under a Bill Nye book review recently):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record

Though I think from Roger's post that Peter's point is that today's GENUS of coelacanths (Latimeria) is not a prehistoric one. However, from a quick look at this Wikipedia link (as above) I am not yet 100% convinced. Though the cladogram under the 'Fossil Record' section of that Wiki page certainly suggests that Latimeria was one of the very latest coelacanth genera to have appeared (but was this before the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous?)

I also looked at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latimeria
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Nov 29, 2014 8:47 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Something WEIRD has been happening (unless it's just my pc). The comment timed at 22.26 pm on 27 Nov was not by me!

It's my cockup Ashley.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 29, 2014 10:08 pm

YECs usually deny possible (chromosome) fusion events.


PS Just seen that Ham is spouting his head off on his facebook page again:
"Now if I were an evolutionist, I would have this caption for this photo:
Mally and I with one of our Australian relatives!
But because I'm not an evolutionist, and evolution is simply not true, and impossible--the correct caption is:
Mally and I in Australia, with just one of the marvelous evidences of the hand of our infinite Creator God--one of the unique marsupials--the koala!"

Well I suppose a koala is very distantly related to Homo sapiens.

According to Have I Got News For You last week (referring to the recent Brisbane summit) koalas are known for pee-ing when picked up. But they do not speak any known language, nor write blogs, nor worship anything or anyone - so presumably they do not engage in wilful lying. Nor misrepresent or fabricate the likely viewpoints of scientists who believe evolution HAS happened - whether from sheer malice or from utter ignorance and incompetence (take your pick).

Now if evolution is a 'lie' and a 'hoax' how come it is convincing and robust enough to fool so many scientists if it is actually 'impossible'?

Probably because Ham is lying (again) and it is not impossible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:40 pm

AiG are unintentionally revealing the bankruptcy of their position again (see Ken Ham's blog post of 29 Nov).

I have just attempted to submit under THIS article the FOLLOWING detailed comment*:
http://biologos.org//blog/confessions-o ... reationist (the discussion in fact relates to this EARLIER Biologos blog:
http://biologos.org/blog/the-evolution- ... rn-baptist)

"Ken Ham is not amused at this OTHER recent Biologos article (where comments are now closed):
http://biologos.org/blog/the-evolution- ... rn-baptist

See:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

This Ham paragraph has an extremely hollow ring to it:
"Now, for every one of the rest of Jacob’s questions and concerns in his BioLogos piece, there are good, solid, biblically based answers that are in harmony with what we know from observational science. A quick search of our website will answer all of his supposed objections to the science behind biblical creation."

All Ham's new blog really offers is some speculation here:
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... xtinction/

There is no meaningful scientific answers in the Chaffey article. It does not even show that the Bible actually mentions or describes dinosaurs anywhere. And apart from citing Genesis 6:19 he glosses over the whole purpose of the Ark - as also cited at Genesis 7 2-3: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth". The 'kinds' were meant to be kept alive throughout the earth. Yet ALL dinosaurs supposedly died out less than 5,000 years after this flood (if you are a young earth creationist who uses the Bible for 'science'). Likewise Genesis 8 16-17: "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it". According to the BIBLE, animals were saved from the flood so that they could multiply and increase in number! Not go extinct. No wonder Chaffey's article ignores these verses! Genesis does not even touch on the concept of extinction of species or 'kinds' (which may mean genus by today's biological classifications).

As for the extinction(s) of HUNDREDS of different species of dinosaur (after just two of the dinosaur 'kind' were allegedly preserved on Noah's Ark less than 5,000 years ago) Chaffey can only opine: "We believe they died off for many of the same reasons that other animals fail to survive: hunting, natural disaster, diseases, changes in habitat, etc". Science has a more plausible answer. Relating to an event or series of events an extremely long time ago.

I expect Ham will also blog about the above article at some point...

Meanwhile, Ham's blog of 29 Nov does NOT remotely deal with what I raised here only a couple of days back. He has NO sensible answer as to why ALL dinosaurs have 'recently' gone extinct. None. (I believe AiG staff monitor this community forum.)
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3589"

No doubt someone will be along to accuse me on their blogs of 'bad' logic in my comments. Let them either desist - or SHOW any bad logic.


* Technical problems have stopped me from successfully posting my comment at Biologos - so I will email this thread to them instead, or send it to them via their online contact form, or both.


PS I've emailed this thread to some who may be interested, flagging this post in particular. If Ham - in criticising other Christians for accepting that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago - has seen this thread he certainly shows NO sign of having done so. But he cannot explain why ALL dinosaurs supposedly went extinct sometime after Noah's Flood (I can't either).


PPS at 20.40 pm GMT on 30 Nov:
I have only just discovered this blog post - about to read it and the comments underneath:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... xtinction/

21.00 pm - have just added a comment at the thread exposing Ken Ham's FALSE statement regarding what the Bible is or is not 'silent' on as made in his 'devolution' blog post.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: As claimed by Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:55 pm

A recent Bible-propaganda video from Ham about dinosaurs has just resurfaced on Ham's facebook page.

However, if you go HERE it is possible to COMMENT on the video - and I have just done so (let the YECs come hither if they can refute me):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08_NAED-3Tk
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

As claimed by YEC David Coppedge

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:00 pm

http://crev.info/2014/12/dinosaur-extinction-2/
"Evolutionary explanations for dinosaur extinction have evolved over the years from one consensus to another in a random walk. Impact craters are real, and lava flows are real, but the dates and associations with extinctions are flimsy. It’s all moot, anyway, now that soft tissue from multiple dinosaurs has been discovered throughout the past decade. A few dinosaurs survived the Flood, but were finished off as pests by dragon slayers like St. George. That explains the selective extinction (why would butterflies survive but not dinosaurs?) as well as the survival of the soft tissue; it’s not millions of years old."
Ah yes, the answer that eluded Ken Ham is that humans - worldwide apparently - killed hundreds of species of dinosaurs within the last 4,500 years, rendering them all extinct (despite God's apparent post-flood plans for that kind of animal revealed in Genesis) whilst the humans sensibly left the butterflies alone.
UTTER GARBAGE.
THIS PERSON USED TO WORK FOR NASA.

Coppedge blocks attempted comments by myself under his blogs. I am emailing him this link and also sending it to him via his website. He is free to respond either by email or here if he disagrees with me.

Dinosaur fossils are indeed many millions of years old and no humans ever slayed any of them - unless the YECs can prove otherwise?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron