Last post, I did an article debunking Ham's method of how creationists and evolutionists look at the same thing yet have a different points of view on it. Trouble with this logic is that the creationists don't really look at actual fossils at all. Instead they rely on what they made up from their heads and put down on paper. They use old fashioned dinosaur books and other outdated sources to build a weak, losing case against the evolutionists who just laugh it all off every time they see what they're thrown at by the creationists. Now I'll get on the dinosaur claims in which the next segment, entitled Dinosaur History, starts out,
“Fossil bones of dinosaurs are found around the world. Many of these finds consist of just fragments of bones, but some nearly complete skeletons have been found. Scientists have been able to describe many different types of dinosaurs based on distinctive characteristics, such as the structure of the skull and limbs.”
Rightfully so! Especially since this counters a well known creationist claim that says all dinosaur fossils were known from a single piece of bone. But the next paragraph is where the truth ends here. When the question is asked Where did dinosaurs come from, Ham claims,
“The Bible tells us that God created different kinds of land animals on Day 6 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:24–25). Because dinosaurs were land animals, this must have included the dinosaur kinds.”
Through circular reasoning Ham claims that in one spoken sentence, all land animals on the 6th day along with all aquatic and airborne animals on the previous day, living and extinct, appeared out of nowhere…and they sure did heavily overcrowded the planet the instant they appeared, did they if what Ham says to be the case? That poses a problem with the creationists when they tried to figure out how did Adam named all the animals in one whole day. To deal with the overcrowding issue, Ham uses his imagination and pretends that God only made less than 200 kinds of animals, never mind the rest of the 90 million plus God forgot to create, yet they do in fact exist. So the less than 200 creative kinds won't work.
The next statement, Ham claims,
“Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved from some reptile that had originally evolved from amphibians. But they cannot point to any clear transitional (in-between) forms to substantiate their argument. Dinosaur family trees in evolutionary books show many distinct types of dinosaurs, but only hypothetical lines join them up to some common ancestor. The lines are dotted because there is no fossil evidence. Evolutionists simply cannot prove their belief in a nondinosaur ancestor for dinosaurs.”
That's one blatant, stupid lie easily debunked by scores of fossils of in-between forms such as Tiktaalik, Seymoria, Euparkeria, Lagosuchus, Odontochelys, and Ornithosuchus. Where Ham got this claim about “only hypothetical lines join them up to some common ancestor” came from an outdated dinosaur book that predates the many discoveries made of transitional forms that fill in all those hypothetical lines on the family trees, including Guanlong and Liliensternus. Ham in his idiot la-la world may say evolutionists cannot prove their so-called “belief in a nondinosaur ancestor for dinosaurs.” but doesn't stop the evolutionists from confirming their “beliefs” to be real thanks to all those Dinosauromorphs such as Lagosuchus and especially Dromomeron.
Next Ham tries to answer, “What did Dinosaurs look like?” by stating,
“Scientists generally do not dig up a dinosaur with all its flesh intact. Even if they found allthe bones, they still would have less than 40 percent of the animal to work out what it originally looked like.”
It was the case before scientists unearthed “Dakota” the hadrosaur mummy like no other with all fossilized skin, perhaps organs, tendons, stripes on the tail, cartilage that fills a gap between bones that made the dinosaurs look more robust than previously thought. With this discovery, scientists have more than 70-80% of the animal to work out what the dinosaur originally look like. The rest of the segment gives out how scientists disagree with how the dinosaur may have looked like and shows an example of how the head of Brontosaurus (or Apatosaurus) was wrong for many years until 2 scientists clearly discovered that the head of Apatosaurus is much different than once thought.
The next segment shows just how stupid Ham's teachings truly is. This Who Discovered Dinosaurs? segment claims falsely (without proof of any kind) that Adam was the first person to discover the dinosaurs just by observing them (and yet kept no records of this) that will eventually became extinct and forgotten (which, to Ham explains why no recollections of seeing and hearing about dinosaurs have been found in all forms of ancient art and literature other than some fabrications and distorted images creationists dredged up in an effort to further their young earth propaganda about dinosaurs and humans living at the same time) just after the flood only to get “rediscovered” a few thousands of years later starting in 1676 and the discovery of a Megalosaurus thigh bone that was wrongly mistaken as a giant human femur. Now how pathetically stupid this crank can get? Especially when it's all entirely imagined up by an absent-minded traditional preacher stereotype who uses minced Christian words, statements, and Bible verses to get people into following him and his stupid dogma.
The claim about Adam being the first to discover dinosaurs is a direct distortion of Genesis 2:19-20 where God made the animals and brought them to Adam so he can name them and see which one of them would be his lifelong mate. The choice he made is none of them, so God went and put Adam to sleep, took a rib from his body and formed a woman out of it and presented her to Adam who saw her as a perfect mate for him. According to the passage, Adam made no discoveries at all; he was only presented with the animals so that he can give them names and see if he can choose one of them as his mate.
In the next section, When Did Dinosaurs Lived? Ham has a knack of wanting the people to believe falsely that the fossil record has no labels on them that tells the digger how old the bones are when he claims,
“Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date.”
I believe Ham made such an arrogant claim out of mockery of dating methods used, including the method of dating radioisotopes, to date fossils with great accuracy. He does this to give the reader the false impression of scientists not finding labels on fossils the same way one finds price tag labels in a grocery store because he simply find dating methods, which is falsely claim to be untrustworthy by other scientists, that accurately date fossils to be millions, even billions of years old, is way too much for him or anyone else to comprehend— an example of how creationists like Ham have a strong desire to make evolutionists be wrong in everything while hiding their own wrongdoing from the public…. and he was a science teacher in high school once.
The next claim contain this crank question,
“Does God tell us when He made Tyrannosaurus rex?”
It's not worth answering since this is made up to get people to believe that God made all land animals on Day 6 during the Neolithic Period at the time of the Egyptain Predynastic period which stretched from c9,500 to 3100 BCE. In this section, Ham has a knack of making his followers think the fossil record is a grotesque record of suffering, bloodshed, and violence that, in Ham's eyes, must occur after Adam sinned or else the concept of animal death and bones littering the ground occurring before Adam sinned would only undermined the gospel and the atonement of Jesus Christ or so he assumes.
Falsely assuming that dinosaurs could not have been millions of years old because Adam lived thousands of years ago does not for one bit undermine evolution through Natural Selection, nor does it undermine hardcore evidence for history, including prehistory, predating 6,000 years ago that Ham wants you to ignore while conforming to his idiot young earth beliefs that are truly the only thing that undermines all doctrines of scriptures because not only does it make God into a dishonest liar, but also denigrates Him and tests Him in every way, which is not what Christians are supposed to do.
Like all creationists, Ham states that there was no death, bloodshed, disease, or suffering before sin, while ignoring the fact that there were death, bloodshed, and suffering among plants before the fall. Believe it or not, plants do have blood. Other than sap, some plants has a special type of blood called leghemoglobin which is a type of blood protein found in leguminous plants such as soybeans and lentils. And if there were no disease before sin then, why did God created the things needed to fight back diseases such as white blood cells and oranges? It would be useless to have such created features if disease and illness doesn't exist. If confronted with such question like that, creationists would just say that God put them there because He knew they will have them when the Fall occurred. How did God know of that, Ham or this is just your way of testing God? I think the creationists are deliberately putting God to the test when they made such remarks like that. It's just comes to show how creationists are denigrating God in every way possible by testing his integrity by making such faulty statements as “God has intended to have all beings live in peace, eating only plants and fruit, and yet give them features that would set all of them up for the Fall and do the things God did not want them to do to begin with.” That's testing God. That's wrong!
If one approaches Genesis to Revelation consistently, interpreting Scripture with Scripture in full context, then death and bloodshed in a spiritual sense comes just after Adam ate the apple and sin arrives to affect only all mankind, not animals. Especially when animals can't think and reason the way humans do. Only man is affected by the curse of sin, not the earth, nor the universe, and definitely nor the animal and plant kingdom. Understandably, most Christians believe that physical death also occurred after Adam sinned, but this does nothing to undermined the fact that death, decay, and decomposition is a necessary part of life, needed for renewal of life and help plants, fungus, and certain forms of invertebrates that feed on decaying matter to help flourish and grow plants needed to sustain the lives of animals and people who feed on them. So death is needed to maintain a very healthy ecosystem even before Adam sinned or else the world will be an highly overcrowded, unpleasant place.
Having animal death, even bones littering the ground, to occur before the Fall (outside the Garden of Eden) does nothing to undermine the gospel, nor the Atonement one bit. Having animals and plants die even before Adam sinned to support, maintain, and renewal life doesn't stop God from creating skinned garments for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness and show them a precursor of what's to come so many years later when Christ came to Earth and died on the cross for all humans to experience spiritual renewal the same way life experience renewal through normal, natural death. Just as plants and animals die naturally to support and renew physical life, Jesus had to come to Earth and die to support and renew spiritual life. If Jesus were to die to only take away physical life, then Christ would have been a total failure; physical death will still be around after all of it's said and done.
It's obvious he'd been getting this undermining atonement tripe from all those creationists who'd been watching too many science fiction films and TV shows depicting dinosaurs and primitive people constantly at each other's throats along with engaging in heavily mincing Bible words, language, morality, deed, and history to fit their perception of what the Bible should be all about. Never mind the real lifestyle of the dinosaurs no one will ever see that greatly contradicts the concept of dinosaurs being warring machines as depicted in so many science fiction films, books, and other forms of paraphernalia. In his ignorance, Ham doesn't want anyone to know that humans is well know to behave worse than animals and be far more destructive than any animal known past and present. No other animal in the world deserves to be call a creature of destruction than man himself who goes about destroying in a matter of minutes everything that otherwise took billions of years for God to form, build, and create.
The next segment entitled, Does The Bible Mentioned Dinosaurs? carries on a well known wishful thinking, false claim that there are dinosaurs (other than birds) found in the Bible. According to Ham, Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the King James Bible because the Bible was written in 1611 long before the word “dinosaur” was invented by Richard Owen in 1842, not 41 (never mind the other versions of the Bible that predates the King James Bible such as Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles). In the reference section Ham claims,
"The meaning of “terrible lizard” has helped popularize the idea that dinosaurs were all gigantic savage monsters. This is far from the truth. Had Owen known about the smaller dinosaurs, he may never have coined the word."
How ignorantly stupid can Ham get?! How was Owen supposed to know this while smaller dinosaurs were unknown at that time? It's obvious Ham made it all up out of total ignorance of the fact that Owen coined the name Dinosauria (which actually means "Fearfully great Lizards") to describe 3 of the first dinosaurs ever discovered by man, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, and Hylaeosaurus. Fossil remains of small dinosaurs like Compsognathus has yet to be discovered.
Since some versions of the Bible does mention dragons and since dinosaurs, in Ham's eyes, is another word for dragons, then dinosaurs and dragons must be one and the same that people must have seen in the Bible and other accounts found in ancient literature… or so he thought.
This lie is the result of creationists fabricating dragon legends and inventing dragon/dinosaur stereotypes to further their 6,000 year lie and make it as if what they're saying is true while making people ignore the fact that dragons are nothing more than mutant snakes with descriptions that don't fit dinosaurs in every way. Dragons that resemble dinosaurs with crocodile bellies, bat wings, forked tongues, arrow tails, and fiery breaths are nothing more than caricatures made up for Hollywood films.
Such fabrications include ripping Bible verses that mention monsters out of context to make it refer to dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and Mesozoic marine reptiles instead of what they really were. When put in full context, the sea monsters of the Bible, such as Leviathan, are described to have serpentine bodies, multiple heads, fiery breath, and impenetrable scales and other things dinosaurs, extinct crocodilians like Sarcosuchus, and Mesozoic marine reptiles like Liopleurodon don't in fact have. Leviathan is actually a serpentine fish monster of Jewish folklore created by God on the 5th day of Creation according to the Midrash supplement to Genesis 1:21 along with the female version of Leviathan whom God killed shortly afterwards when he realized the 2 could produce offspring that could decimate the whole world if God allow the female to live.
Neither do pterosaurs resemble the “fiery flying serpents” of Isaiah 30:6 which are really Amphiteres, limbless snakes with bird-like wings and colorful illuminating scales. Pterosaurs are in fact flying reptiles with bat wings each supported by one elongated finger, hair, bird heads, gorilla bodies, and 4 limbs. None resembled snakes in every way. Amphiteres is also mentioned in the writings of Herodotus, Strabo, and Aristotle, too— also mistaken as pterosaurs by the creationists.
Ham also brings on the behemoth fallacy too, claiming that Behemoth could not be the hippopotamus or an elephant because the tails are way too small to be a ceder tree. Dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus could not be Behemoth either because none of them have navels and the tail like a cedar verse in the Job 40 passage euphemistically refers to the monster's erotic behavior. The truth is Behemoth is nothing more than a mammalian monster of Jewish folklore that resembles an ox that, according to the Midrash supplement of Psalm 50:10, lives in a region of a thousand hills that provide for him plenty of grass to eat and the Yabul River to drink from that flows straight out of paradise (Eden). This monster at the end of the world will rise up to fight Leviathan only to be killed along with Leviathan by God who will then use them to feed his people with a never-ending supply of meat coming from these 2 animals along with another beast of Jewish folklore, Ziz, the bird monster that resembles a griffin.
Then Ham, in the segment, Are There Other Ancient Record of Dinosaurs?, gives out the list of what he believes to be accounts found in other forms of ancient literature of people meeting up with live dinosaurs that are really in fact fabrications creationists like Ham all made up to taking in pieces of what they want to take in and throw out the rest of the context that clearly states that the “dragons” are not really dinosaurs at all,
"A Sumerian story dating back to 2000 BC or earlier tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon that he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy."
Gilgamesh actually killed a humanoid demon named Humbaba by cutting off his head and was cursed by Humbaba's creator because of this deed.
"When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves."
They actually saw only one serpentine dragon in the cave, blowing, hissing, and popping only its head out of the cave from time to time whenever an army passes by. The serpent is said to measure about 120 feet long and has huge eyes the size and shape of a Macedonian shield. No dinosaur eyes were ever that big, nor did they have serpentine bodies.
"China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings."
All featuring a serpentine body with a compositor of nine modern animals, the horns of a deer; the head of a camel; the eyes of a devil; the neck of a snake; the abdomen of a large cockle; the scales of a carp; the claws of an eagle; the paws of a tiger; and the ears of an ox. No dinosaur descriptions here.
"England and several other cultures retain the story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave."
He actually slew a winged dragon with a poisonous breath that lived in the water. No dinosaur descriptions here.
"There is the story of a tenth-century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus."
Wrong. The Irishmen encountered a winged limbless serpent named Paiste whom was tricked by the Irishmen into being binded by 3 rods and sent to the sea to await his punishment from God.
"In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several living animals that we would call dinosaurs. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon."
Tanystropheous looked nothing at all like the dragon now considered to be a hoax. It was more of a drake or a fat Lindorm than the Triassic Archosaur. The dragon Baptista claims to have seen and killed had a neck and head that resembles a coiling snake, a curling tail, a pair of bat wings, a big fat belly, and only 2 short legs. Tanystropheus, on the other hand, had a 10 foot long stiffen neck, 4 legs, a skinny body, and a tail that snaps off when attacked by a predator like a modern lizard of today. This lizard is ill equipped for both water life or land life. Yet, scientists are still trying to learn as much as they can about this special Triassic archosaur which probably spends its time on the ocean shores feeding on fish, ammonites, and other forms of sea life.
"Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaurlike creatures have also been found."
Also claimed to be a hoax created by people of the 20th century or an attempt made to illustrate Paleozoic invertebrates on rock walls after seeing fossil remains of them nearby. One drawing, according to Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies (IBSS) February 2008 article, Dr. Stephen Meyer made better sense when he concludes that the petroglyph, which creationists take as evidence of live dinosaurs living alongside humans and modern animals, actually depicts an eagle, a modern dinosaur we call a bird.
In the conclusion of this segment Ham claims,
“In summary, people down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons.”
Or have they?
“The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs.”
They don't.
“The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air.”
It really doesn't. It only mentions monsters that exist exclusively in folklore, nothing else.
“There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.”
All confirmed to be false.
Continued Next Post..
