Ken Ham Explains Dinosaur Extinction

The world’s greatest theologian and scientist seems to be Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo clears up a great mystery for us today. In his latest essay, The Devolution of a Creationist, he discusses a blog post written by a young man named Jacob, who Hambo says is:

a recent homeschool graduate who describes his switch from accepting young-earth creation to believing in old-earth, evolutionary ideas. He claims, “My shift away from young-earth creationism began not due to convincing answers from the evolutionist crowd, but because of the unconvincing and confusing answers of the young earth crowd.”

What turned Jacob away from young-earth creationism? Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s answer, with bold font added by us and his scripture references omitted:

The objection that supposedly first made Jacob begin to question God’s Word in Genesis was about dinosaurs. At one point he asked someone why dinosaurs weren’t on the Ark and was told, “There were dinosaurs on the ark, but they died out shortly after exiting it … This led me to think, why did God save them at all if they were just going to die out anyway?” [Ellipsis in Hambo’s post.]

That’s a good question — why take up valuable Ark space with huge creatures who would soon go extinct anyway? According to Hambo:

The Bible tells us that God commanded Noah to take animals aboard the Ark “to keep them alive with [Noah].” There is nothing about God promising to preserve them after the Flood, and since Scripture is silent on the issue we must make speculations based on what we know of His character. Actually, lots of animals — not just dinosaurs — have died out since the Flood. [Brackets in Hambo’s post.]

This is neat. Even though scripture is silent, Hambo knows the answer anyway. Let’s read on:

God knows all things and His ways and thoughts are far above ours. We also know that God doesn’t always choose to protect us from the consequences of the choices we make.

[…]

So let’s apply this kind of thinking to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other species. Animals are constantly going extinct from loss of habitat, environmental changes, human predation, and other reasons — because of the effects of sin, the curse, and the Flood. Should God not allow these creatures to suffer the consequences of living in a fallen world? Of course not. Sin brought death, and part of that death is animal extinction.

Ah yes, that explains it. But wait — it’s more complicated than that:

Moreover, we do not believe dinosaurs died out shortly after the Flood. We have evidence of recent cave drawings of animals that we think could possibly be dinosaurs, which means the people who did the paintings would have actually seen living dinosaurs!

Uh huh. Okay. Hambo continues

What Jacob is ultimately doing is questioning the mind of God, thinking that his ideas are better than God’s. He did not become an evolutionist because his study of Scripture forced him to change his interpretation. Jacob became an evolutionist because he chose to accept man’s words over God’s Word.

Jacob is making a big mistake! Here’s more:

It’s not degrading and dishonoring for us to trust God’s words in Genesis. As biblical creationists, we don’t limit God — we limit ourselves to letting God tell us in His Word how He created, and we don’t impose our fallible ideas on God’s Word!

[…]

What actually is dishonoring and degrading is sinful, fallible, created beings thinking that they know more than the Creator and can tell Him how He did something — even if it completely contradicts His perfect Word.

Hambo isn’t just describing Jacob, he’s also talking about you, dear reader. You are sinful and fallible, and your science is “dishonoring and degrading.” But Hambo hasn’t given up on Jacob — or you. He concludes his essay with this:

It certainly is sad to see this young man turn away from trusting God’s Word and turn to believing in man’s opinions. We pray that someday he will realize the error of trying to conform the Bible to man’s word and will repent and put his trust in all of God’s Word — including the first chapters!

Now you have a perfectly clear understanding of why the dinosaurs were saved on the Ark and went extinct later.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

39 responses to “Ken Ham Explains Dinosaur Extinction

  1. Hey hambone, were there meat eating dinos, like Tyrannosaurus rex, or just some big, fat plant eaters? And if T. rex was there, how do you think Noah and his crew would have fared? Yum, look at the tasty people the sky fairy gave us!

  2. Kinda reminds me of the old joke about the two hungry polar bears standing just outside of an Eskimo igloo. . .one of the bears muses with the other about how much he likes to eat an igloo with sleeping occupants, ’cause it’s crunchy on the outside, but nice and softly gooey on the inside . . .

  3. Is Hambo becoming even more unhinged as he continues to seethe and wring his hands while he becomes seemingly more and more obsessed with his pretend wooden boat’s sinking into a sea of ridicule, red ink, and his self-inflicted legal and political problems?

  4. “…we must make speculations based on what we know of His character.”

    “Animals are constantly going extinct from loss of habitat, environmental changes, human predation, and other reasons — because of the effects of sin, the curse, and the Flood.”

    Whole lot of Kentucky speculation going on here. And them thar animules were downright sinners, sure as hell, god tore ’em apart he did.

    And all the time I thought they went extinct because Noah & his Ark kinfolk feasted on them until they got themselves all ate up!

  5. Doctor Stochastic

    Did Noah take two or seven teredo worms on the Ark?

  6. So, the dinosaurs became extinct because Adam ate an apple? And they all went belly-up after disembarking the ark? So then we should find some dinosaur bones in strata younger than the layers containing the remains of the ark. Sounds like a job for the Wyatt Archaeological Museum!

  7. Hambo drools and blathers: “Should God not allow these creatures to suffer the consequences of living in a fallen world? Of course not.”

    Yessiree Bob, here in ol’ Kentuck we never lets our critters get away with sinnin’ and all the ungodly things they does when we ain’t lookin’ . . .that’s how come we invented fried pork rinds . . .to get ’em ready for the lake o’ fire!

  8. Animals are constantly going extinct from loss of habitat, environmental changes, human predation, and other reasons — because of the effects of sin, the curse, and the Flood.

    The curse? Oh noes!

    Oh, wait a minute. I think he’s talking about something different . . .

  9. Well, more of the same. Another wail of defeat and loss from Ham. He’s losing, he knows he’s losing, and he’s screechifying about it.

    Fundamentalists circled the wagons a century ago. But the circle keeps getting smaller and smaller.

  10. Derek Freyberg

    As a Kiwi, albeit one living in the US for the past 40+ years, I could make the old joke about the migration from NZ to AU, which surely applies to Hambo, but I won’t (after all, the Aussies will surely reply about Banana Boy – Ray Comfort)

  11. And no one notices that Ham tells us what he thinks what happens, and that if somebody else has a different opinion, that is placing that other opinion above the Bible. And nobody dares question?

  12. Doctor Stochastic asked, “Did Noah take two or seven teredo worms on the Ark?”

    Excellent trick question. Neither, of course. Ken Ham & friends would quote Genesis 7:22: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”

    The ancient Hebrews considered thinks which seemed to have lungs or similar and air-holes (nostrils) had “breath” and therefore were alive. [Many cultures associated the moving air with “spirit” and being alive, which is why we see that combination in many Greek and Latin morphemes which appear in English words, such as “pneumatic” (Greek “pneuma”, spirit)]

    Because Toredo worms are ocean dwelling, they aren’t “dry land” animals and the ancient Hebrews wouldn’t have consider them among the creatures to be taken aboard the ark.

    Of course, there are plenty of Old Earth Creationists and others who pay attention to the Hebrew text of Genesis and notice that Noah’s flood only flooded Noah’s ERETZ (“land”), not the entire planet. So not even all creationists assume a GLOBAL flood. (That also means they don’t have to claim that the flood exceeded Mt. Everest, etc. Indeed, because the Hebrew text can justifiably be translated, “the flood waters reached 15 cubits, exceeding the highest hills”, creationists like Dr. Hugh Ross have fewer flood issues to explain than does Ken Ham.)

    ERETZ is usually translated “land”, “country”, “nation”, “region”–and even “wilderness” occasionally in the KJV. (Translating ERETZ as “planet earth” is largely a result of tradition and a misperception that Hebrew cosmology thought of the ERETZ as the spherical planet we think of today. Reality: they didn’t. However, divulging too much of this information would scare a lot of Bible readers–and so most modern English Bible translations use “earth” for ERETZ in controversial passages like Genesis 1 but use a footnote to admit that “land”, “country” is an “alternative”. However, even “earth” when translating ERETZ really means the 1611 concept of “earth”: the opposite of sky, and similar to “the ground”. Of course, even today we have other translations of the word “earth” than “planet earth”. Accordingly, translating ERETZ as “earth” would be ok as long as English readers were to realize that it is NOT the sense of “planet earth” that is meant in Genesis 1. [Even the KJV alternates between “earth” and “land” when translating ERETZ. So that tells us that even the 1611 translators understood the issues and potential controversy. But even they had tradition to worry about, because the KJV heavily “borrowed” from older translations and kept a lot of familiar wording.]

    [Any summary of the ERETZ issue is going to be lacking because the topic is too complex to casually compress and not offend plenty of lexicographers.]

  13. “Jacob became an evolutionist because he chose to accept man’s words over God’s Word.”

    More likely, he realized that what Ken Ham says Genesis says is NOT what the text of Genesis says Genesis says.

    Whenever Ken Ham talks about “what God says”, he means “I will tell you what God is saying.” Ham is very careful not to let his followers know that there are plenty of Genesis passages which Ham interprets less literally than his critics.

    For example, Ham likes to think “creation week” was six days of “poofing!” instantaneous creations. But the actual text of Genesis 1, even in English, says God issued commands and then PROCESSES, clearly requiring periods of time, produced various results. For example, “Let the waters bring forth [living creatures]…” and “Let the land bring forth [living creatures.” Same for “the land” and plants. Indeed, these passages actually fit better with abiogenesis and evolutionary processes than “poofing.”

    Do most scholars think the author(s) of Genesis thought the aforementioned passages were describing evolutionary processes? No. But if those who choose to insert science into the text wish to do so, Ham has no scriptural reason to stop them. And if Ken Ham truly cared what the Biblical text states, he’d realize that processes are described–not “instant poofing” with forests appearing immediately. Moreover, he would also realize that nothing in a passage like “Let the land bring forth living creatures..” rules out evolution. “Bringing forth”, which includes the sense of generations of birth, growth, and reproduction, certainly fits how real ecologies develop and do not sound like “poofing”.

    If Ham actually interpreted the Biblical texts more literally and less traditionally he wouldn’t have so many Bible readers disagreeing with him, especially the scholars.

  14. Eddie Janssen

    The tone of Ham’s article is so irritating, arrogant and i-know-better-than you (while showing total ignorance), it makes me want to kick something.
    Even more debilitating is his fatherly attitude: i am not angry, i am sad. You are just a child, ofcourse you think silly thoughts. Let me explain the Truth.
    My own father used this way of arguing, so we all left church (5 of us).
    Ham has to be careful that this attitude does not become the main reason why young people leave his flock.

  15. Diogenes Lamp

    Uh… So why did God put dinosaurs in the Ark?

    Ham wrote s lot of Vegemite but never answered the question.

    Why did dinosaurs go extinct?

    Ham answered a DIFFERENT question– why does extinction happen– and he “answered” it with ‘black magic curse on ya cause Adam ate a bad apple.’ We did not ask a ‘proximate cause’ type “Why?” question or a question about the mechanism by which extinction in general happens. We want to know why there was a non-random extinction pattern, why all non-avian dinosaurs go extinct (not to mention pterosaurs, synapsids, pelicosaurs, giant xenarthrans etc.) but not, say, all placental mammals. Ham tells us a fairy story about magic apples causing death, like the story of Snow White. That story is an extraordinary claim not supported by extraordinary evidence, and it appears to attribute the PATTERN of extinction to blind chance.

    OK, if we compute the probability of an extremely nonrandom extinction pattern being caused by blind chance, we’d get an astronomically small probability.

    But Ham pulled bait and switch with the question. He was asked about why God put dinosaurs on the Ark.No answer. He was asked about a highly nonrandom extinction pattern and he gives a supernatural allegation of cause, unsupported by evidence, that would leave the pattern of extinction to blind chance.

    If my son asks, Why does our car have those things (windshield wipers)? And I answer, “Because a robot attached them at the factory”, I have avoided answering his question by switching it for another. If I answer it with, “A wizard attached them by magic,” I have not answered his question, insteaf I’m making extraordinary claims not supported by extraordinarily evidence, and I’m lying.

  16. Diogenes Lamp

    Derek, please tell us the joke. We haven’t heard it.

  17. One of the comforts of dealing with Ham is that he can’t stand any demurral, no matter how insignificant the point may be. Nobody can disagree with him on any grounds whatsoever and remain in the fold. This makes it practically certain that any organisation he heads will continually bleed members, and will periodically schism. Ham simply cannot muster the political smarts to prevent this. He can’t work with others, as he has repeatedly proven.

    He’s just parted brass rags with his old mate the Governor of Kentucky Steve Beshear over the Ark Park’s employment policies. This is an insane move, but Ham can’t bear the thought of not having total control. Requiring him to guarantee non-discriminatory hiring policies is intolerable: it would intrude on Ham’s authority. All part of the same pattern.

  18. The joke originates with “Piggy” Muldoon, prime minister of New Zealand a generation or more ago. Some journo or other asked him whether he was concerned about the net drain of New Zealanders to Australia, said to be in search of better-paid jobs. Muldoon said he was not, as only the stupidest New Zealanders would do that, so it certainly would improve the average IQ of both countries.

    We all laughed like drains. But I suppose you had to be there.

  19. My interpretation of the story, equally valid to Ken Ham as we’re both making it up, is that during the period that God forgot the ark, (days, weeks, months?) Noah did some personal culling of the animals on board. He tossed the dinosaurs and the other animals he didn’t like overboard. Perhaps he BBQ’d a few. By the time God remembered him, (Genesis 8.1) the ark was considerably lighter. This is why there are no more dinosaurs in the world.

    Interpreting the bible is like playing a game of Balderdash.

  20. Ham likes to act as if he is so sure every word of the Bible was inspired by his God. Perhaps. Of course, there is no evidence one way or the other; thus it is called “faith”.

    Well, then, who’s to say that Darwin wasn’t inspired in the same manner? A person of faith could easily argue that God led Darwin to discover the evidence that would lead to his writing On the Origin of Species. The same could be said of any scientist and any scientific discovery; any scientific theory. Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Aristarchus, Darwin — all prophets.

    In other words, Ham cannot point to anything that would falsify this.

  21. But the actual text of Genesis 1, even in English, says God issued commands and then PROCESSES, clearly requiring periods of time, produced various results. For example, “Let the waters bring forth [living creatures]…” and “Let the land bring forth [living creatures.” Same for “the land” and plants. Indeed, these passages actually fit better with abiogenesis and evolutionary processes than “poofing.”

    YEC types seem to envision creatures erupting out of the ground, like plants growing in a time-lapse film, and coalescing out of sea water and fresh water like solids coming out of solution.

    Of course, there are plenty of Old Earth Creationists and others who pay attention to the Hebrew text of Genesis and notice that Noah’s flood only flooded Noah’s ERETZ (“land”), not the entire planet. So not even all creationists assume a GLOBAL flood. (That also means they don’t have to claim that the flood exceeded Mt. Everest, etc. Indeed, because the Hebrew text can justifiably be translated, “the flood waters reached 15 cubits, exceeding the highest hills”, creationists like Dr. Hugh Ross have fewer flood issues to explain than does Ken Ham.)

    My understanding is that a “cubit” was about eighteen inches, so 15 cubits would be 22.5 feet. For that to overtop “the highest hills” would make ERETZ pretty flat. It wold mean that the largest dinosaurs would also have overtopped the “highest hills.”

    It’s worth noting that the Nile-Euphrates valley in which the Biblical flood legend originated is prone to flooding (Egyptian agriculture famously depends on its annual floods) and may undergo “superfloods” at intervals of a few millennia due to purely natural causes, as is also true of other river deltas such as the Mississippi, Yangtze and Mekong. So the flood legend might be based on a folk memory of such an event, without having anything to do with the world’s creation.

  22. Old Hambo isn’t a theologian, nor an ordained minister, nor even a bible school graduate. According to the Wiki he got his undergraduate degrees in biology and education and taught high school biology for five years before striking out to dig for creationist gold in them thar flim-flam hills.

    Old Hambo is a business man and creationism is his business. Nothing more, nothing less. Hambo can say whatever he wants because he’s accountable only to his own business, which is making money off the weak-minded. He seems to do that very well.

    I don’t pay any attention to what Hambo says because it’s all mumbo-jumbo.

  23. Oh, one more thing. I loved Hambo’s comment that dinosaurs must have survived the Flood because of cave paintings. Why were people living in caves after the Flood? Noah and his family knew how to build houses, cities, boats and all sorts of stuff. What’s with living in caves?

  24. It would mean that the largest dinosaurs would also have overtopped the “highest hills.”

    Keep in mind that those creationists (e.g., Old Earth Creationists) who are actually pay attention to the Hebrew text of Genesis also pay attention to paleontologists (some of the time) and accept that dinosaurs were extinct at the time of Noah.

    Yes, one needs to pick up a brochure on the way in the door, if one is going to keep track of what various flavors of creationists believe…but such is the world of creationism. For example, Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) is a PhD astronomer with solid academic journal papers in his CV who accepts lots of science and even slaughters Ken Ham in public debate over issues like age of the earth, dinosaurs, the evidence that a global flood couldn’t have happened cuz the Bible doesn’t say so and there is no scientific evidence for it, but his big blind-spot is evolution. Dr. Ross claims that evolution has limitations and so God “progressively created” [no, not political progressiveness!]by intervened in the world now and then and did some kind of major “boosting” to the biosphere by creating the kinds of new stuff that evolutionary processes can’t produce.

    There is an old TV debate on Youtube of Dr. Ross and Dr. Walter Kaiser (a major Biblical Studies scholar) absolutely destroying Ken Ham and …..I think it was Kent Hovind (??). This was a rare occasion where Ken Ham allowed himself to face a real Biblical scholar and a real PhD scientist (both of whom have far more scientific and Bible knowledge than Ham) and the bloodbath is funny to watch.

    Dr. Ross is an odd duck in being a real scientist who can got most of the other science straight and yet works overtime to dismiss the full implications of what evolutionary processes can do. On a personal level, he is a super nice fellow and has little or none of the ego-mania complex that Ham has. (Not all ministry leaders are total narcissists. But like anything else, they don’t get nearly the news coverage as the pathological ones.)

    Dr. Ross has gone public with the fact that he has Asperger’s Syndrome. I have often wondered (as a totally unqualified person to make such an evaluation) if this at all explains some of his selective handling of science. [Obviously, people can be selective for many reasons but I simply mention it based on various factors I won’t delve into after observing Ross for many years.] I’ve wondered if Ross will eventually do what millions of other Christians have done (e.g., Biologos’ scientists like Francis Collins) and eventually realize that there is nothing in the Biblical text which denies evolutionary processes. (The Hebrew text clearly points to processes and not “poof instantaneous creation” of plants and animals. Obviously, the text makes no effort to provide a scientific description or overview. Genesis 1 can be read many other ways than the YEC way which reads literally some sentences and ignores or goes metaphorical on others.)

    {I know there was a Ross & Kaiser vs. Ham & Lisle debate of about 6 hours duration….but I was thinking there was an older one which included Hovind instead of Lisle. Lisle used to work for Ham but now he is with ICR, if I recall. He has a legitimate PhD and is thereby one of the oddest ducks in all of YECdom. I shredded his Ultimate Proof of God a few years ago and he employed the usual “You’ve lowered yourself to Ad Hominem fallacy” defense, showing that he is yet another YEC who thinks that everything that is negative is an insult and therefore an example of that fallacy. Of course, it isn’t.}

  25. Why were people living in caves after the Flood? Noah and his family knew how to build houses, cities, boats and all sorts of stuff. What’s with living in caves?

    Let’s assume Ken Ham’s post-flood world where there are NO other people on the planet. Would you or I be able to build ourselves a house if no one else existed but our immediate family (and the son’s wives)? There’s no building supply stores. No abundant labor to hire to bring materials. In any case, why not start with an excellent existing “structure” (i.e., caves) and simply make it comfortable inside? It is a lot less work to start one’s new life by living in a suitable cave. (After all, in Ken Ham’s world there are no bears or even rats in the caves yet.)

    At a time when I would want to focus on food supplies, why not take advantage of an existing cave as an immediate home rather than have to build a home? (People living in tropical climates can build basic shelters in a day. People in temperate climates, not so easy. But caves have often been used, depending on the kind of cave.)

  26. ROTFLMFAO Ol’Hambo needs to SDASTFU

  27. @Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius

    I think you’re mixing a few things here. While it’s possible the Noah family put up in a cave in the short term (though don’t you think they might opt instead to continue living on the boat, where there were presumably some comforts?), evidence of cave dwelling comes from a wide diversity of regions with those caves together having thousands of occupants of different generations. This implies the passage of, what, centuries after the end of the Flood.

    And, all this time, everyone’s just too busy to build houses?

  28. though don’t you think they might opt instead to continue living on the boat

    I took for granted by the premise of a previous commenter’s statement about building homes after the flood that it was presumed that the ark was not available or was being used for other purposes. (Frankly, after housing Ken Ham’s concept of every animal in the world, I doubt that ANYBODY would have wanted to live within 10 miles of the stinkin’ thing! After being stuck in the ark for over a year, I doubt that the prospect was very appealing. But seeing how we extended the Ham-fantasy to include plush caves, I was quite willing to move into one.)

  29. Keep in mind that, in Ham’s world, ANYTHING he dreams up can be part of the game. After all, he also claims that there was a Great Ice Age associated with the flood. The fact that neither the Bible nor Science points towards such an idea matters little to Ham.

    So if Ham can construct any fantasy he wishes, why can’t we?

  30. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    “… ,and since Scripture is silent on the issue we must make speculations based on what we know of His character.”

    Well, given that Yahweh not only condones but has ordered the wholesale slaughter of entire tribes of humans, why would we think for two seconds he’d give a crap about a bunch of stinking “terrible lizards” ?

    Yahweh might have saved them then wiped them from the face of the planet just for the *hits and giggles for all we know and if you think you have some kind of entitlement to an answer you might just get yourself lined up for a good smiting so shut it and read your bible smarty pants.

    See Ken, that’s how you do it.

  31. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    I would QUERY the assertion of Ham that “there is nothing about God promising to preserve them after the Flood”. Please see my post at this thread timed at 23.40 GMT on 29 November:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3589&p=49864#p49864
    Note that I quote a couple of verses from the flood account in Genesis that AiG would prefer to gloss over – verses describing God’s plans for the animal kinds leaving the ark and dispersing post-flood (those plans as set out in Genesis did NOT include extinction).
    I believe I have exposed the fact that all ‘Answers in Genesis’ have on such topics is either NO answer (as in this instance) or FALSE answers (as mentioned above).
    Waiting for their rebuttal (the thread was emailed to them). Well, maybe.
    Even the most ‘biblical’ Christians are forced to TWIST the Bible to ensure it is scientifically/historically ‘accurate’ and ‘relevant’ in a modern scientific era. (Of course ‘compromisers’ who discuss science and origins usually twist the Bible even more because they ACCEPT the scientific consensus but attribute life, the universe and evolution to the Christian God.)

  32. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    I also contacted Biologos about Ham’s rather silly arguments.

  33. Ashley Haworth-roberts says: “Note that I quote a couple of verses from the flood account in Genesis that AiG would prefer to gloss over – verses describing God’s plans for the animal kinds leaving the ark and dispersing post-flood (those plans as set out in Genesis did NOT include extinction).”

    Quite right. If the purpose of the Flood was to wipe out the unrighteous and start over again, then it shouldn’t have been necessary to continue the pattern of extinctions.

  34. Doctor Stochastic

    So treating the Hebrew text literally implies treating the flood littorally?

  35. Wait a second. Has it ever occurred to ANYONE that if the only people on earth were Noah and his wife and children, and just a couple of thousand years later there are millions of people all over the world populating the nations and tribes, NO ONE would have had any time to draw any stinkin’ pictures of dinosaurs on any cave walls. They would have had to be producing babies non-stop, and even then there wouldn’t have been enough time to re-populate the world. And this was going on back in the day when infant mortality had to be sky-high.

    Docbill’s got it right — Ham’s all film-flam; says what he wants to say just to make a buck. It doesn’t matter that the whole Noah Flood idea is ridiculous; if Ham gets enough people to buy into his creationist nonsense, he makes money.

  36. Justice a la Ol’ Hambo:

    “Sin brought death, and part of that death is animal extinction.”
    So because Adam and Eve disobeyed an order animals have to suffer.

    “You are sinful and fallible”
    Worse – I’m completely comfortable with it.

  37. Dave Luckett

    “Sin brought death, and part of that death is animal extinction.”

    See that last bit? That’s Ham adding to scripture to suit himself. The first part is a mangled translation of Paul’s letter to the Romans, part of 5:12; but the second has no scriptural authority at all. Nowhere does the Bible say why animals are cursed with death, or species with extinction. It does say that God used to be pretty keen on them dying, provided he got the best bits (or his priests did), but no indication of why they die, same as us. I mean, the story says we disobeyed, but the animals are innocent.

    And this “curse”, this general curse on the world, the one that involves predation and parasitism, disease, pestilence, entropy, decay, and every other ill from dandruff to poison ivy? No scriptural reference for any of that. God laid two specific curses on humans generally: that they would die, and that they would have to earn their food from labour. On women he laid a third: that in pain or sorrow would they bear children. And one more on the serpent: that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust. And that was it. All the rest comes under the heading of Making Stuff Up, which is supposed to be a no-no for, you know, serious theological theses.

  38. @Dave Luckett
    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22.18

  39. This is a case of reading between the liars.