Ken Ham Smells Fresh Dinosaur Blood

Yesterday, in our Mid-Week Free Fire Zone, we mentioned this article at PhysOrg: Scientists out for dinosaur blood, which says:

Scientists said Tuesday they have discovered what appear to be red blood cells and collagen fibres in dinosaur bones, a find that may boost prospects of prising organic remains from a much wider range of fossils. Using molecular microscopy, a British team analysed eight bone fragments from dinosaurs that lived some 75 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period.

As we always do with such things, we predicted that it would excite the creationists. We didn’t have long to wait. It sparked an immediate reaction from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo’s article is 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Blood Cells? Even Hambo’s title is wrong.

Nobody found actual blood cells. Instead, they found “structures that could be original red blood cells,” according to Sergio Bertazzo from Imperial College London, one of the British team that analysed eight dinosaur bone fragments. You can read about it in Nature Communications: Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens.

None of that matters to ol’ Hambo. Here’s what he says, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:

Yet another recent discovery supports the history of God’s Word.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s his lead sentence. Then he asks:

Now, how could soft tissue survive for 75 million years?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It can’t, and nothing like that was found. Let’s read on:

Are evolutionists questioning their assumptions that the fossil is 75 million years old? Of course not! Instead, they simply assume the materials somehow survived for 75 million years because they believe on the basis of their evolutionary presuppositions that the fossil is that old.

Yes, it’s all based on evolutionary presuppositions. But Hambo knows more than those godless fools. He confidently declares:

This new find is consistent with the young age of the Earth as described in God’s Word and in no way confirms evolutionary ideas about the past. Of course evolutionists can’t even consider the possibility that these bones are not millions of years old, as they have to have their supposed millions of years to propose their ideas of molecules-to-man evolution. Actually, believing in millions of years is a necessary part of the religion of naturalism (atheism).

Is there any need to go on? There’s nothing new or unexpected here, but Hambo is always entertaining, so we’ll continue:

[I]ronically enough, as soon as the secular world finds dinosaur bones with soft tissue or blood cells, then the media thinks this is a great find. Really, the secular world seems to think they own dinosaur bones and that biblical creationists and Christians have no right to have them or interpret them within our own worldview!

No one disputes Hambo’s right to own a fossil, and if he wants to, he can interpret it as proof the Tooth Fairy. Nobody cares — except Hambo’s drooling followers. Here’s one more excerpt:

But finds like the one the researchers in the London Museum discovered affirm biblical — not evolutionary — ideas about the not-so-distant past. We can trust God’s Word to provide us with an accurate history of Earth.

And we can trust Hambo to keep us entertained with the very latest creation science — from 3,000 BC.

Copyright © 2015. 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

18 responses to “Ken Ham Smells Fresh Dinosaur Blood

  1. Derek Freyberg

    What disappoints me a little about the Bertazzo article is that though they do mention “75-million-year-old dinosaur specimens”, they worked with specimens collected in the early 20th century so that only the general formation in which they were found appears to be known. They seem to date them to the Cretaceous only (and I wonder if that dating is simply by type of fossil). It would have been nice if they had worked with specimens that were more clearly dated/dateable: a better provenance would be good. But the preserved material is present in such minute pieces that it’s difficult to imagine that anything more definitive on the “dinosaur blood” front is likely to emerge.

  2. Hamster and all other creationists, know nothing about soft-part fossil preservation styles. They don’t know the difference between altered soft part preservation and original soft part preservation. This is another great example of willful ignorance (as Kent Hovind says: “Dumb on purpose!”). Hamster, for your information, the oldest known original soft parts (that I’ve heard of) are still-living halobacteria that have been isolated in Neoproterozoic rock salt for over a half-billion years. It’s not magic. They’re not young. Please live in what sane people call “reality”.

  3. That is a scary bizarre rant by ol Hambo…
    Actually, its a bit frightening that this man
    can earn a living saying such things.
    One can only hope his mental illness and
    fraud are driving people further away.
    One hopes.

  4. I slowly begin to suspect that Ol’ Hambo actually follows SC’s humble but nice blog and is afraid that IDiots and other creacrappers get too much attention …..
    Will he score a hattrick?

  5. After reading Ken Ham’s whinings about Miley Cyrus, reading his whinings about dinosaur blood is actually a bit of a relief.

    [If you hadn’t heard about that one,
    Even when mocking Miley Cyrus, Ken Ham embarrasses himself by exposing his ignorance of evolution.]

  6. Hambo: “Actually, believing in millions of years is a necessary part of the religion of naturalism (atheism).”

    Well, how ’bout that? I’m a very religious man! Who knew? I wonder if I can get 501(c)(3) status?

    Does Hambo actually think he’s going to convince the courts that evolution, “naturalism”, and atheism are truly religions, and therefore evolution should not be allowed in public schools?

  7. anevilmeme

    Did anyone expect Ken and his ilk to actually understand what has been found?

  8. Ken says ‘Now, how could soft tissue survive for 75 million years?’
    What’s the matter Ken you think your gawd can’t have samples that old? So you don’t believe in miracles anymore?

  9. Fee, fie, foe, fam;
    I smell the blog of a half-baked Ham.
    Be he a crook or be he Behe,
    I’ll read his words just to go “Tee hee!”

  10. Christine Janis

    What is all this fuss about the preservation of soft tissues —- don’t we already have a gazillion fossil leaves?

  11. Christine Janis asks: “What is all this fuss about the preservation of soft tissues —- don’t we already have a gazillion fossil leaves?”

    Wow — squishy plant tissue! The Earth really is young!

  12. All you critics of YEC dogma, and who refuse to learn how to think correctly about the past from people like Ken Ham, are in denial!!
    Except that you probably aren’t:

    Except when people like Ham misrepresent the known facts …

  13. However, I disagree with part of SC’s blog. This Abstract clearly refers to ‘soft tissue’ – and the age is thought to be around 75 million years. Thus his comment “It can’t” looks plain WRONG.

    That CREV blog I’ve linked to was merely saying that in the PAST ‘evolutionists’ said this could not happen- because they were disputing what had (at that time) been found in dinosaur fossils. (YECs of course insist that soft tissue ‘can’t’ survive for 75 million years ergo the date must be extremely incorrect.)

  14. Ken says ‘Now, how could soft tissue survive for 75 million years?’
    What’s the matter Ken you think your gawd can’t have samples that old? So you don’t believe in miracles anymore?

    Notice how Ham frames it “How could it happen?” When his followers, or gullible potential followers, can’t answer that question, they’re ripe to be led to the conclusion that it can’t–and that therefore these fossils date back to no more than 6,000 years ago. And anyone who can answer is simply branded an evil naturalistic liar.

  15. Techreseller

    I do not see that the dinosaur was dug up by creationists. Do not see the research was done by creationists. Why am I not surprised?

  16. Colton Rodoski

    I’m a little confused here. You say they found no red blood cells, then say they found “structures that could be original red blood cells.”

    So…they did find red blood cells?? I’m not a creationist mind you, but I’d like clarification here. What exactly did they find, if not for original blood cells?

  17. Christine Janis

    They found real bone too. Bone is a tissue, just like blood. But, of course in fossils, the bone found has been petrified, and while it might contain some of the original tissue in some state, it is not the original substance but a preserved version of it.