Ken Ham: Of Dinosaurs and Birds

Creationists have never accepted Archaeopteryx for what it seems to be — a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Wikipedia says:

Despite their small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx had more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than with modern birds. In particular, they shared the following features with the dromaeosaurids and troodontids: jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes (“killing claw”), feathers (which also suggest warm-bloodedness), and various features of the skeleton. These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and birds.

We’ve written a few times before about the denial of creationists — see, for example: Discoveroids Deny Dinosaur to Bird Evolution.

Now we’re going to hear from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: If It Looked Like a Bird and Flew Like a Bird . . . It Must Be a Dinosaur! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

There’s a test called “the duck test,” and it’s very complicated. You ready? This is how it goes: “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” But because they begin with the wrong starting point (man’s word), evolutionists have changed this test into this: “If it looked like a bird, had feathers like a bird, and flew like a bird, then it was probably a dinosaur.”

Yes, that’s exactly how we do it. Then he says:

Because evolutionists believe birds descended from dinosaurs, they are often desperate to classify fossils that are bird-like as transitional to dinosaurs. And Archaeopteryx, a small bird known only from a few fossil specimens, has been at the forefront of this battle.

Hambo has brilliantly exposed our weak spot. He tells us:

A recent article in the BBC [Archaeopteryx flew like a pheasant, say scientists] highlighted research that showed that Archaeopteryx could fly like a modern pheasant or quail. Investigations on its fossil bones with high-powered X-ray beams showed its bones were mostly hollow (like modern birds). The researchers found its wing bones matched that of modern birds with the ability to take off quickly and fly a short distance, like pheasants.

The article also says that Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago, but Hambo doesn’t mention that. He continues:

So let’s apply the duck test to Archaeopteryx. This magpie-sized creature had hollow bones like a bird, feathers like a bird, the ability to fly like a bird, and other features some birds are known to have. Now this may be stretching it, but maybe, just maybe, it was actually a bird!

Gasp — if Archaeopteryx was a bird, that means it wasn’t a transitional species! Let’s read on:

Some evolutionists insist Archaeopteryx is a transitional form or even a flying dinosaur because it had teeth, claws on its wings, and a long, bony tail. However, these features occur in other extinct or living birds.

Well, it had a few typically dinosaur features too, but we can’t argue with the duck test. And now we come to the end:

Archaeopteryx wasn’t some kind of pre-bird dinosaur. It was a bird that was designed by its Creator to do what it was designed to do and do it well.

Fascinating! We’re left wondering if Noah took Archaeopteryx on the Ark along with the dinosaurs, but he probably did. There was plenty of room.

Copyright © 2018. 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

14 responses to “Ken Ham: Of Dinosaurs and Birds

  1. https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2018/03/29/looked-flew-like-bird-must-be-dinosaur/
    I already commented here (on 27 March) after Ham made similar simplistic comments on his Facebook page:
    http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1770
    I could add that this dinosaur WAS mistaken for a primitive bird (and Ham thinks it’s the other way round – not because of ANY scientific evidence but because the bigot declares that so-called historical science is ‘not’ science but is ‘Man’s word’ that fails to confirm ‘God’s word’ (as interpreted by 21st century young earth creationists).
    And there’s also a liar ‘test’.

  2. I mean no ‘scientific evidence’ for what Ham claims. Real scientists reclassified Archaeopteryx because mainly of new evidence relating to the fossilised remains of Anchiornis and Xiaotingia, I believe.

  3. Mark Germano

    “[Archaeopteryx] was a bird that was designed by its Creator to do what it was designed to do and do it well.”

    Go extinct?

  4. @Mark Germano
    Or evolve.
    Was it designed to tell us something about evolution?
    Or was it designed to mislead us.
    Or is it just an accident?

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    The guy who is affronted by the cartoonish depictions of Noah’s Ark is the same person here using a creationist argument I thought was only dumb enough for the Banana man.

  6. He’s the class idiot making fun of the smart kids because…. Dunning-Kruger

    Or the world’s most clever con-man.

    Most of the time, when you lie to somebody to sell them something, it’s illegal. Unless you hide behind religion and target the flock.

  7. “evolutionists believe birds descended from dinosaurs”
    Let me help Ol’Hambo out here. Since the development of cladistics evolutionary biologists actually claim that bird are dinosaurs. In Biblical terms: they belong to the same kind! So do mammals of course, so the Bible was right all the time when putting bats on the list of birds.

    “Creationists have never accepted Archaeopteryx for what it seems to be — a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.”
    That’s because they hanven’t a proper understanding of the divine word. The newest baraminology, formulated by no one else than the illustrous MNb, that staunch defender of creacrap, has decided that Archaeopteryx belongs to the same kind (bar) as Tyrannosaurus Rex and the mighty sparrow. And hence Archie was not transitional and evolution (which means what I want it to mean anyway) is falsified.

  8. @Ashley introduces another scientific experiment: “And there’s also a liar ‘test’.”
    As our dear SC has been pointing out for years Ol’Hambo passes with flying colours. The main challenge that interests me is: can we here beat Ol’Hambo on his own field?

    @Kosh can’t make a choice: “Or the worlds most clever con-man.”
    Just con-man. WIth a little exercise (forget about coherence and consistency, use all the logical fallacies you can think of) anyone here can do it too.

  9. Amazing how Hambo can take a complicated and nuanced subject such as transitional fossils and make it completely stupid. Like so many of his neo-conservative kind he plays to an audience that is tired and weary of having to use their brains. And then we wonder why we have skills gap in this country?

  10. Taking a subject and making it stupid is the forte of creationisms.
    Consider the exposition of the Big Bang as being a literal explosion taking place in a substance, or that the defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle as being explained by an omniscient and omnipotent designer – and everything in between. Or how the Lord of the Universe takes care that a particular athlete wins.

  11. Inspired by Hambo, I think we need to revise The Duck Test, viz.:

    If a something is supported by stacks of evidence as a ‘fact, a Creationist will nonetheless duck it.

  12. Ol’Hambo and co duck evidence like the enemies of Rod Steiger and James Coburn duck flying debris.

  13. here’s a test called “the duck test,” and it’s very complicated. You ready? This is how it goes: “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” But because they begin with the wrong starting point (man’s word), evolutionists have changed this test into this: “If it looked like a bird, had feathers like a bird, and flew like a bird, then it was probably a dinosaur.”

    And it had “jaws with sharp teeth,” too, just like a . . . er, ahem, moving right along . . . !

  14. Let’s see… if it has teeth, a long, bony tail, and certain other skeletal features of some types of dinosaurs, how does Ham classify it as a bird? Can he name any bird that has teeth and a long, bony tail?

    “If it flies like a duck, and chews like a dinosaur, it must be a … dinoduck?

    Hmm. sure does sound like a transitional species.