The next segment entitled What does the bones say? (Answer: Nothing.) takes no shame in parading a prominent, distorted falsehood about the discovery of "fresh, unfossilized bones" made in recent years such as a tyrannosaurus fossil (found in 1997) which in the creationists' eyes confirm their beliefs in thousands of years without evolution to be true. Here, Ham claims that Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer have found inside the fossil bone blood cells and hemoglobin which in the creationists' eyes provides "a [sic] stunning rebuttal to 'millions of years'" while ignoring the fact that Mary actually found none of it. Instead, she found only fossilized remnants of hemoglobin and degraded materials from blood which have been preserved for millions of years without being permineralized. But that's not all. In 2005, she wrote and published a recent discovery made of a T.rex fossil femur with soft tissues inside it. Nothing like this has ever been discovered before. Thus, it turned out to be a very exciting find. However she thought she found soft tissue in the bone after she reluctantly broke the fossil in half to make it lighter for the helicopters to carry the femur to the museum for study. While creationists like Ham claimed falsely that she found very squishy playdoh like tissues in the bone that she grabbed and squish about in her hands the moment she broke the fossil apart, Mary, in reality, actually found slime— biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells she carefully separated from the rock minerals that has been seeping into the fossil femur over a period of millions of years. Still, this doesn't stop the creationists from making slanderous, derogatory remarks about the fossil refuting evolution and "millions of years" because if the fossil was indeed millions of years old, the tissues would all have rotted away…or so they thought.
One has to wonder, do they have valid proof of any kind that a fossil can't really be preserved over a period of millions of years? No, they don't. They just make up Argument of Incredulity remarks and just assume that all the fossils, including the bone, was formed by Noah's Flood that could have battered the fossil to bits with meteors, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions and provide no preservations whatsoever if that was the case.
Creationists don't get it in their heads that fossil preservation don't determine the age of the earth let alone how fast can a fossil form. Why they think fast forming of fossils and preservations of soft tissues matters to them in determining the age of the earth is a sure sign that they're getting pretty desperate when they realized they're running out of options in finding "proofs" for thousands of years they can't find.
Next, Ham lies to the reader about alleged "unfossilized" hadrosaur bones that has been collected by Buddy Davis and his creationist cronies in Alaska in 1994 which turns out not to be the case after all according to Laelaps' investigation about them,
"In any case, just to put Davis' expertise on paleontology and evolution in perspective, I remember hearing that he had found "unfossilized" dinosaur bones in Alaska, but then the trail went cold. If true, the discovery would be fascinating and shed light on a lot of issues about dinosaurs, fossilization, and taphonomy (how things are buried and preserved), but Davis seemed to want to take the credit and do none of the footwork in following up on the discovery. Frustrated with the lack of information, I e-mailed AiG directly about the issue and was sent a clipping from one of their magazines, stating:
It was our hope, because of the "remarkable" preservation, that these bones might contain some ancient organic molecules. To date, our tests have not been able to confirm the "unfossilized" hypothesis. Twenty of the bone samples were analyzed in Russia for collagen. Only four showed positive results. We became suspicious of these results when we were not able to confirm them with tests made by other labs. One report from a reputable laboratory in the United States told us the samples they tested were "extremely degraded". Some of the bones have also been tested for DNA. The results were inconclusive. From our results thus far, the bones should not be referred to as "unfossilized". [emphasis original]
The Bureau of Land Management reports that the Alaskan bones are fossilized, but all of their pore spaces have not been filled in with rock, making many of them lightweight. They also report that no DNA had been discovered in the bones, but because of their condition, they might be good candidates for it. Until further testing can prove otherwise, the Alaskan dinosaur bones should be referred to as "fossilized."
John H. Whitmore
Given this revelation, one would expect an honest, Christian organization to be forthcoming with something of such importance to their claims, or at least change the information on their website to reflect such a development. I guess they never got around to it, as the biography for Buddy Davis still says he discovered unfossilized bones in 1994, as well as citing the bones as unfossilized in this article, referencing the same note by Whitmore I just shared with you saying the bones should not be considered unfossilized! Either they're holding out hope for dinosaurs within the Bishop Ussher timeline, lazy, or dishonest (I'll leave you to be the judge)."
It just comes to show how untrustworthy, dishonest, and downright sinful these creationists, who believe in thousands of years, really are.
The next segment, entitled What Did Dinosaurs Eat and How Did They Behave?, comes to show just how creationists like Ham go all the way to make up one stupid lie after another when they present what they believe to be the exact diets the dinosaurs must have had before the Fall, let alone the Flood. Here Ham made the plant kingdom suffer in his mistook of Genesis 1:30 to mean a commandment from God for all animals to eat only plants. If we believe the Bible and the literal Genesis, we will find that God did not command the animals to eat plants, he only provided the animals to eat plants. God did not exempt animals from eating meat. Especially outside the Garden of Eden where animals such as lions and wolves roam about in search of meat God provides for them to eat.
To defend his tripe, Ham uses animals that have sharp teeth yet ate fruits and plants such as the panda and the fruit bat. But does he know that these animals have chewing and biting teeth as well as sharp teeth called canines? No, he would just rather ignore all that and focus only on the canines that don't work as well as T.rex's one set of teeth which he uses to crush through bone as well as skin and flesh unlike the weak, smooth, flat, blunt canines that can only be used to intimidate rivals, fight back when attacked, and to hold onto food.
Now he tells a fairy tale story where everything goes la-la-la without having to worry about things that go "bump," "scrape," and "smash" all over their bodies,
"Some argue that people or animals would have been hurt even in an ideal world. They contend that even before sin, Adam or an animal could have stood on small creatures or scratched himself on a branch. Now these sorts of situations are true of today's fallen world-the present world is not perfect; it is suffering from the effects of the Curse (Romans 8:22). One cannot look at the Bible through the world's eyes and insist that the world before sin was just like the world we see today."
Oh yes, they can. Think of life outside the Garden in comparison to life inside the Garden. Adam's pad is quite small in comparison with the rest of the world. In Ham's world, all of earth is one big fairy tale world where everything concerning thorns, leeches, and bacteria doesn't exist (so Adam and the animals can't digest food since bacteria is needed to digest plant matter and plants can't get all the nutrients needed to live if decay doesn't occur), where branches are just blunt projectiles, rocks are all like nerf balls and people and animals do ballet to keep themselves from stepping on the little critters like the ant and the beetle crawling about. This is the creationists' own definition of a perfect world where no clothing will wear out, no one will get burned, and all animals are peaceful vegetarians.
This "perfect world," creationists claimed to be real at one time before Adam sinned, is asserted to be fully restored when Jesus Christ comes back to Earth someday and fulfill the prophesy told by Isaiah where the wolf will lie with the lamb, the lion will eat straw like an ox, and the children will not be hurt when they play near a cobra nest. But this definition of a perfect world is not really perfect at all. When Jesus Christ comes back to earth, what He'll do to the earth may not be what creationists want to see come to fruition. God will not restore Eden, but instead render earth into something better than what creationists assume He'll do. One has to wonder, how do they really know if that's exactly what God will do when He comes back to earth or this is just another way to test God by saying He'll do it and them turn around and really hope that He'll do what they say while being ignorant of God having other plans for the future?
What creationists expect God to do and what God will really do is two different things.
If there was no death before the Fall, then there's no reason for God to put the Tree of Life in the garden and no reason for animals to have traits of a carnivore either. Even when the wolves do lie with lambs, and the lions eat straw, and the children play near a snake nest (a possible metaphor of the time to come when the people of Israel will find themselves living peacefully, eating, working, and playing with their once enemy neighbors) on God's mountain, no animal will be exempt from eating meat. Especially when the meat comes from the triune beasts (Behemoth, Leviathan, and Ziz) God plans to kill at the end of the world to offer His people a never ending supply of meat to eat and skin and bones for tents, clothing, and jewelry.
Creationists like Ham are notorious for shunning much of the Bible and focus only on the verses and passages that matters to them, such as Isaiah 11:6-9 for instance, while shunning the other passages in the Bible that condone, even instigated carnivory. There are passages in the Bible where God sends out wild animals to kill and devour people who rebel against Him and a verse in the Bible where David praised God for providing meat for the lions to eat. How do creationists explain all that? Answer: They can't and won't. They'll just shun them and regard the claws and fangs as something that in Henry Morris' words, "..must await research". In other words, throw them out so they won't bother dealing with them.
Having God commanding all animals and humans to eat only plants until after the Flood and having carnivory and fangs be part of the sin-cursed world is just another example of creationists distorting the Bible to fit their own beliefs. And that includes taking Bible verses out of context and distort their meanings to fit their beliefs and use it as a huge part of a ploy conspiracy to stir up the emotions of the people to the point where they will be easy to subject them to the dogmatic teachings of Ham who goes on about God giving man dominion over the animals on earth and then adds,
"Looking at today's world, we are reminded of Hebrews 2:8: "For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him." Man's relationship with all things changed because of sin-they are not "under him" as they were originally."
The Hebrews 2:8 verse is taken out of context. When put into full context we find that the verse only refers to Jesus being made to be like men for the purpose of fulfilling His role as Savior of all mankind. It has nothing to do with man's dominion over the animal kingdom.
One of the most prominent of creationists falsehoods is the falsehood that claims that all fossils were formed during the Great Flood of Noah. This falsehood is riddled with problems and in recently some creationists are aware of this. So to work around this problem, creationists use their imaginations and make assumptions that perhaps the fossils (in some cases) were formed during the post-Flood era and not during it. But that poses problems, too.
In Why do we find dinosaur fossils? segment, Ham claims that all fossils must before by rapid burial which is only half-truth. Although some fossil methods does require quick burial, other require a much slow, slow process such as the formation of amber and coal. Here, Ham claims that because the world was such a wicked place, God had to send a Flood to destroy everything and start all over. To survive the Flood, Noah at God's command had to build the ark and put all kinds of animals inside.
One of the most silliest reasons Christians has made over the years to why the dinosaurs disappeared is because they were too big to fit into the ark. Ham counter this and claim that on average, all dinosaurs were the size of sheep or cows. This lie, just as bad as the too-big-to-fit-into-the-ark lie, is all made up in an attempt to fit all types of animals into the ark which cannot be done.
Another claim made in an attempt to fit all types of animals into the ark is the falsehood of dinosaurs being small babies or young adults. Here Ham claims,
"Dinosaurs laid eggs, and the biggest fossil dinosaur egg found is about the size of a football. Even the largest dinosaurs were very small when first hatched. Remember that the animals that came off the boat were to repopulate the earth. Thus, it would have been necessary to choose young adults, which would soon be in the prime of their reproductive life, to go on the Ark. Recent research suggests that dinosaurs underwent rapid adolescent growth spurts. So it is realistic to assume that God would have sent young adults to the Ark, not fully grown creatures."
It will not be realistic to assume this since this is another act of testing God's integrity to see if God really did ordered Noah to bring up babies or young adults in the ark just as Ham and all other creationists has asserted He did. What Ham claims goes up against God's command for Noah to take up only full grown adult animals. Babies and young adults, with no experience in surviving the outside world without humans to care for them, cannot repopulate the world, let alone survive the Flood's aftermath (even when they do experience [sic] "growth spurts"), so Noah have to take in only adult-size animals to keep the animal population alive.
Like all creationists, Ham asserted that Noah took only [sic] "representative kinds of land animals" while leaving out the rest of the animal species to die off in the flood. Taking only young, inexperience "representatives" while leaving out the rest of the animal kingdom to die in the Flood is an act of disobedience to the Lord. What Ham claims greatly contradicts the command from God for Noah to take in all kinds of animals, including species, into the ark. If what Ham claims to be the case, then Noah took up only chimpanzees while leaving the rest of the apes to die in the flood; he took up only cobras and left the rest of the snakes to die in the Flood; he took up only bald eagles and left the rest of the eagle "kinds," such as the harpy eagle, to die in the flood; he took up only grizzly bears and left the rest of the bear population to die in the flood; and so on. What is shown here is the best example of how creationists distort the biblical story of Noah's flood to fit their young earth beliefs and display their utmost hypocrisy when they claim that evolution is false, yet turn around and teach evolution only when it suits them.
Note how even Ham is teaching rapid evolution to which he cloaked as speciation which he claims falsely that it's not evolution, but it is evolution his way. In his own words speciation is "..something based on the created information already present and is thus a limited, downhill process, not involving an upward increase in complexity." In other words, what he's really saying is that all animals are clones. Pure, degenerate, slightly modified, sometimes mutant, carbon copies of the original imaginary "created kinds" with slight modifications added to them. Here when he claims that Noah simply took up a tad few cat, dog, ape, or bear kinds into the ark (while leaving out the rest of the animals to die in the flood — species in all) so they can repopulate the world and develop back into the many varieties of clones we see today, it implies that all types of animals, living and extinct, are direct descendants of basic kinds of animals, one or two each, that were rescued from the Flood, left the ark, and quickly developed into huge stock piles of cloned animal varieties that repopulated the earth in a very short time once more. This is what Ham wants everyone to believe, accept, and above all, deny he's ever teaching evolution, especially through common descant, and ignore all the problems and Biblical contradictions that associates with speciation, mutations and the Noah's Flood scenario such as, for instance, the claim about most animals dying off after the Flood after God wanted them be kept alive after the Flood. If God wanted them alive, yet they died off after the Flood, then what's the point of rescuing them anyway?
This is entirely made up as an attempt to fit all animals into the ark which is completely impossible to do. There are over 90 million species of animals in the world, living and extinct. Even taking in only young, sheep-size basic representatives would still overfill the ark to way beyond its capacity, causing the vessel to burst apart into splinters and send all of its passengers down to the bottom of the sea. It will be completely impossible for 8 people to care for all these animals without encountering problems over diseases, sanitation, food, ventilation, stimulation, and exercise. To combat this problem, creationists use their imaginations and pretend that all the animals in the ark went into hibernation and sleep throughout the trip. That way Noah and his family won't have to care for them as much…or so they assume. Most animals don't hibernate at all and sometimes hibernation proves to be a life hazard to those who do hibernate for the winter or estivate during drought seasons. Creationists would say that God caused all the animals to hibernate so that Noah would not have to spend a lot of time caring for them, prey animals would not be nervous around predatory animals, and Noah would only give the animals, including predators, just plant food to eat, but they have no proof of this. Instead, all they ever present to the lay audience is just made-up imaginary scenarios they dredged up to help deal with how did the animals survive in the ark without having to encounter problems over disease, ventilation, sanitation, etc. Plus, putting them on a vegetarian diet is not going to keep predators in a healthy state. Especially when all those plants is going to make them real sick. Even Little Tyke had major heath problems when she was alive and suffering from protein deficiency that caused her to not eat meat at all.
Ham even parades the less-than-50-different-kinds-of-dinosaur falsehood when he claims,
"Dinosaur names have tended to proliferate, with new names being given to just a few pieces of bone ( false), even if the skeleton looks similar to one that is a different size or found in a different country. There were probably fewer than 50 distinct groups or kinds of dinosaurs that had to be on the Ark."
No, Ham. Not fewer— more! Much more than 50 distinct groups of dinosaurs that would overfill the ark and burst it in to splinters (even when they're sheep sized), leaving no room for all other animals living and extinct to come inside and be saved. There are indeed more than 700 different kinds of dinosaurs— and still growing as new dinosaur species is discovered every 6 weeks on average. Plus this is entirely made up out of total ignorance of scores of complete dinosaur skeletons unearthed over the years that gives scientists a real impression that there are far more than 50 different kinds of dinosaurs that once roamed the earth millions of years ago. This less-than-50-different-kinds-tripe is also made entirely up to fit dinosaurs into the ark let alone all other forms of living and extinct life which it cannot be done. The ark was extremely large, but not large enough to hold all basic kinds of animals in the world that exceeds 90 million, let alone way exceeds 50 and 200.
The last part of the segment claims falsely that all fossils were formed by the flood and its devastating aftermath, which is false. He believes the Flood caused the Ice Age to occur even. That's also false. He then claims that twisted and contorted bodies, mass graveyards, wide distribution (As if all animals and people once live in one single spot before the Flood came and scattered them! Must have been way too over crowded with little or no space back then, huh.), and some whole skeletons of dinosaurs (that were quietly buried in reality) provide convincing evidence of dinosaurs being rapidly buried by the Flood. All of this is false, too.
Floods, even the Flood of Noah, don't really bury things at all, they simply wash them all away. What does rapidly bury everything on the spot are sandstorms and volcanic ashfalls, not flash floods. In every essay I made about the fraudulent flood geology, I have given you a scenario of what would've happened if the global Flood did occur and greatly affected the world that will bring death to not only the animals, but to people as well. The Flood would've destroyed all plant life, destroy all fossils, decimated the whole world with volcanoes, earthquakes, and meteor storms, which the Bible speaks nothing of, shatter the continents and mountains into the sea, and above all render the whole world into a desert wasteland; no Ice Age. As mentioned before, if God wanted to preserve all life in the ark and yet all life was wiped out just after they left the ark, them what's the point of rescuing them from the Flood anyway?
Continued Next Post…
