Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Algae

We knew that when we saw this at PhysOrg a couple of weeks ago, Study solves mystery of how first animals appeared on Earth, a creationist would come forward to set things straight. PhysOrg says:

Research led by The Australian National University (ANU) has solved the mystery of how the first animals appeared on Earth, a pivotal moment for the planet without which humans would not exist. Lead researcher Associate Professor Jochen Brocks said the team found the answer in ancient sedimentary rocks from central Australia.

“We crushed these rocks to powder and extracted molecules of ancient organisms from them,” said Dr Brocks from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences. “These molecules tell us that it really became interesting 650 million years ago. It was a revolution of ecosystems, it was the rise of algae.”

The paper was published in Nature: The rise of algae in Cryogenian oceans and the emergence of animals, but without a subscription, all you can see is the abstract.

You can understand what a challenge this must have been to Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. We not only have some godless scientist claiming that the first animals appeared because of algae, but this research comes from Australia — Hambo’s homeland.

A response from Hambo was inevitable. His new post is titled Algae Are Your Ancestors? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Supposedly, it’s only because algae formed that life was able to evolve and diversify so, they say, “algae . . . are the ancestors of us all.” After all, evolutionists believe humans are related to all animals and plants in their so-called evolutionary tree of life.

How absurd! Hambo says:

According to this new story about the origin of life, bacteria dominated the planet in the supposed Snowball Earth period, a time during which evolutionists believe nearly the whole planet was covered in ice. Then, 650 million years ago, “complex forms of life suddenly took over. The reasons why this happened were somewhat of a mystery.” But the mystery is now solved, apparently. The end of this period presumably created the perfect conditions for algae to bloom and, after some time, you get from algae to us — not that much of a jump really!

Foolish scientists! Hambo tells us:

Of course, this is nothing but a story — a fairy tale — attempting to explain how complex life appeared on earth. … Well, you don’t need to look at molecules from rocks to determine the true origin of mankind. God’s Word tells us plainly,

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Ah, we knew we could count on Hambo to tell us The Truth He continues:

The evolutionary story will only continue changing as new evidence comes to light (interpreted through their naturalistic worldview and the lens of millions of years), but those who put their trust in God’s Word won’t be disappointed. God’s Word doesn’t change — it will endure forever [scripture reference].

That is so comforting! And now we come to the end:

Observational science has confirmed the history in the Bible over and over again.

Only a fool would deny it. Way to go, Hambo!

Copyright © 2017. 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

19 responses to “Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Algae

  1. Christine Janis

    ‘They say, “algae . . . are the ancestors of us all.” ‘

    Actually, they say that nowhere in the article, not even with words in those ellipses. Nowhere in this article is there any implication that algae are ancestral to animals. Ken needs a course in reading comprehension, or perhaps in telling the truth.

  2. “Observational science has confirmed the history in the Bible over and over again.” Show evidence please at least 20 specific buBull verification!

  3. Yes – Hamster is lying (what a surprise). The researchers are not saying metazoans are evolutionarily derived from algae.

  4. And nowhere does the Bible say anything about algae. The Bible does not speak about algae, or helium, or the rings of Saturn.
    Why would someone bring up the Bible when speaking about things that the Bible shows no interest in?

  5. “ancient sedimentary rocks” Ken Ham screaming ancient, how his 6,000 years ancient, comes to mind.

  6. Aren’t sedimentary rocks supposed to be the remains of Noah’s Flood (another of those made-up things imposed on the Bible), 2348 BC?

  7. Hambone is right about one thing. It’s not a big surprise that a myth written down thousands of years ago hasn’t changed. As I recall, the myths about the gods on Olympus haven’t changed much, either. By Hambone’s alleged reasoning, those stories must be true, since they are unchanging, unlike that evil science stuff. And now I’m off to thank Ganesh we weren’t made in his image.

  8. Michael Fugate

    I think it was Hanuman’s image, though.

  9. abeastwood and Michael,
    I am more thankful not to be made in the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s image.
    Although the flying part might be cool…

  10. @abreasrwood
    The stories change. They are different when they appear in different forms in the Bible. And when they are told in the Bible after they were told in other Ancient Near Eastern forms. And when they are told again by modern preachers.

  11. @Tom B, I don’t look like our Pastaic Overlord either, but I do have the meat balls I’m proud to say.

  12. Skeptical Servent

    No it hasn’t Hambo does not know how science works at all it changes as time goes on evolution theory like any other theory changes one day we may have a new theory showing how life changes. Science has not done what Hambo says unless your a professional and has a degree no one will take anything you say seriously.

  13. Saith the Hamster:

    Well, you don’t need to look at molecules from rocks to determine the true origin of mankind. God’s Word tells us plainly.

    Yes; God’s word tells us plainly that the Lord picked up a bunch of dirt (“dust of the ground”) and formed the first man from it. Now I’d ask Ham: “Show me dirt turning into a man!” Then he anesthetized the man, took out one of his ribs and turned it into the first woman. “Show me a rib . . . !”

  14. For me, the money quote is here:

    “The evolutionary story will only continue changing as new evidence comes to light”

    Yes, folks, you saw it here. This is Ken Ham admitting that the evolutionary story is driven by evidence.

  15. @Draken
    Is it the size of the ball or the magic in the noodle?

  16. “Then he anesthetized the man, took out one of his ribs and turned it into the first woman.”
    Actually, the original word mean “arch” or “support” – it does not mean “rib”. The current suspicion (actually, for quite some time now) is that the author was referring to the baculum (penis bone) that is found in many placental mammals, but not humans. The ancient Hebrews could hardly not notice that difference. Recall that the biblical translators often got creative when the literal translations became too embarrassing (e.g. using the Latin word instead of English for “kidney” [biblically: where your dreams come from]).

  17. Maybe we DID come from algae… it would explain why Hambone is so slimy…..

  18. TomS, you’re quite right – there are two completely different origin stories in the first two chapters of Genesis, in fact, and are unashamedly presented as such. You then have indications of a third, more traditional world origin tale in Job, where God slays monsters to lay out the foundations of the world, and hints of a transitional origin story in Isaiah.

    It’s almost like the Bible is a set of texts gathered by people in a different time who were more concerned with making sure the texts survived than in making sure they were in perfect harmony with one another.

  19. @Zetopan
    The bacula of our closest ancestors are tiny useless things; that we got rid of the baculum altogether is no big deal. An ancient Hebrew sacrificing a bull or ram would hardly be expected to notice that the baculum is missing in humans, especially because human corpses were treated with more respect and interred intact.
    The Eve from baculum story is a very attractive one, but I cannot find it persuasive. Nonetheless, I feel sure that there is some hidden meaning in Eve being made from a rib rather than anything else. Whatever it is, it will make JHWH look a fool, because that is the whole thrust of the second creation myth, the fall of man and the expulsion from Eden.