Hambo and the Chinese Dinosaur

A few weeks ago, PhysOrg posted ‘Amazing Dragon’ unearthed in China pushes back date of earliest sauropods in Asia. They say:

A team of researchers from China and the U.K. has unearthed the remains of the earliest diplodocoid ever found in eastern Asia. In their paper published in the journal Nature Communications [A new Middle Jurassic diplodocoid suggests an earlier dispersal and diversification of sauropod dinosaurs, readable online], the group describes the place where the fossil was found and what the find revealed about the history of the large dinosaurs.

[…]

Sauropods are a class of dinosaur — they are known as very large vegetarians with long necks and massive bodies. Diplodocids are regarded as a super-family of sauropods representing some of the largest animals that have ever lived on land. They have been classified as neosauropods because of their more recent evolutionary history compared to other sauropods. But their absence in eastern Asia suggested something had prevented them from moving into that area. But now, it appears that assumption is wrong. … The find proves that diplodocids did exist in what is now eastern Asia, during the time before Pangaea broke apart. That means they had to have arrived at least 15 million years earlier than previously thought.

The news has just reached Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, he wrote: A Dinosaur in the Wrong Place, Wrong Time? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Evolutionary scientists have recently announced the “surprising discovery” of a dinosaur similar to Diplodocus (one of the long-necked dinosaurs) in a region of northwest China where these dinosaurs were not believed to have lived, fifteen million years earlier than scientists thought they had evolved. This discovery now “forces a complete re-evaluation of the origins and evolution of these animals.”

Ooooooooooooh! The evolutionists were wrong! That’s in contrast to creation scientists, who are never wrong. Hambo says:

When I point out that the evolutionary story and timeline have been revised again many evolutionists will quickly declare, “that’s science! The process of science changes our knowledge as we discover more evidence and data.” But what’s wrong with this argument?

Tell us, Hambo! Here it comes:

Well, first of all, this kind of thinking ignores the difference between observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that develops medical innovations and new technologies. But historical science deals with the past (like these dinosaur fossils). It is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable so what you believe about the past will directly determine how you interpret the evidence in the present.

Groan! We went through this years ago — see Creationism and Science. It’s summarized in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Hambo continues:

With this in mind, [Hee hee!] consider this find. [We’re ready, Hambo!] The observational evidence is dinosaur fossils in a rock layer in China. The fossils don’t come with tags, telling us this dinosaur lived millions of years ago and they certainly don’t tell us they evolved from another kind. [Ooooooooooooh!] Those are interpretations imposed on the evidence because of an evolutionary starting point. And this starting point is consistently getting the story wrong! We don’t know those dinosaurs lived in that area or even died there — all we know is some remains of them are found in that area as fossils.

Wowie — he’s right! Let’s read on:

You see, it’s not just the occasional fossil popping up at the wrong evolutionary time in the wrong place. If you follow science news at all, you will see that nearly every week there’s at least one story claiming that everything we knew about the evolution of such-and-such a creature needs to be rewritten in light of a new find, study, or perspective on a find. And what always happens? Evolution just absorbs these changes. The model is so plastic it just changes with every new find.

And creationism never changes. Why? Because they start with The Truth. Here’s our last excerpt:

Because evolutionists start with the wrong starting point [The fools!], they will consistently be surprised and have to rewrite their story. … Many more surprises are still to come for evolutionists because they have the wrong starting point — man’s fallible opinions rather than God’s infallible Word.

Hambo doesn’t bother to give us his explanation for the evidence found in China, but he doesn’t need to. We already know — the dinosaur was dumped there by the Flood 4,000 years ago. Creation scientists have a good deal — they don’t need to do any research because they already know everything. So why don’t you join them, dear reader?

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

19 responses to “Hambo and the Chinese Dinosaur

  1. Well, first of all, this kind of thinking ignores the difference between observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that develops medical innovations and new technologies. But historical science deals with the past (like these dinosaur fossils). It is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable so what you believe about the past will directly determine how you interpret the evidence in the present.

    But aren’t creationists who trot out this or that supposed scientific discovery in support of the reality of Noah’s Flood engaging in “historical science” themselves?

  2. Just dawned on me how lazy creationists are, I mean we always knew they were intellectually lazy but physically as well. They just sit back, preach to the sheep, learn nothing new and provide their silly commentary as the world moves on from their Bronze Age belief system.

  3. @Richard

    “provide their silly commentary”

    On EVERYTHING. Every announcement he feels it necessary to put his own spin on, to keep his sheeple from getting suspicious.

    Me thinks he dost protest too much.

  4. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    When you lie about the age of the earth you then have to lie about everything.

  5. What surprised me at first was they claim Biblical authority for so many things which are clearly not in the Bible – and get away with it.
    The macro- microevolution barrier being an egregious one.

  6. Hambo demonstrates the not-so-subtle art of making mountains out of molehills.

    I5 million years is not that long on geological or evolutionary timescales. What the rest of us see as a major strength of science- the ability to revise understanding in the light of new findings- Ken sees as a drawback. Up is down. Black is white. The sky’s not blue, it’s actually red.

    Instead, Ken offers dogma- forbidding and inflexible, straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. This BS distinction he keeps making between observational and historical science is a lame horse. Someone should take it outside, put up a folding screen around it, and humanely put it out of its misery.

    The “horse”, that is, not Ken. If he’s taught me anything, it’s to love my enemies.

    Or to fake it, convincingly.

  7. Noah’s flood is not historical science because god himself recorded it in the wholly holey holy babble. HE was there.

  8. The Biblical story of the Flood is anonymous. Tradition has it that Moses is the author.
    Creationists just make stuff up.

  9. To point out the bloody obvious, the very fact that historical science is revised in the light of new evidence is proof that it is, indeed, testable. That’s what testing means

  10. Ham proclaims:

    fossils don’t come with tags, telling us this dinosaur lived millions of years ago

    But the rocks are indeed so ‘tagged’ by the radioactive elements they contain…

  11. The fossils don’t come with tags. That is what calls for science.
    Just making up stories is not good enough.

  12. “The fossils don’t come with tags, telling us this dinosaur lived millions of years ago ”
    They actually do, in the form of particles created by atomic decay (and not Ol’Hambo’s god). Whenever you engage a YECer rub this into his/her face, This is pure observational science according to Ol’Hambo’s own logic. I’ve yet to meet the first YECer who did not get silenced by this argument.
    And that answers our dear SC’s question why I don’t join them.

  13. @EricL: “But aren’t creationists … engaging in “historical science” themselves?”
    Yes – that’s their main point. They rely on the testimony of their perfect god here.

    @RichardS has had a revelation: “learn nothing new.”
    Of course they don’t. As our dear SC points out they already know the truth, so there is nothing left to learn. As KarlG correctly remarks they typiically rather lie than admit that they are wrong. That can become funny as well:

    Mentally sane person: “Evolution Theory does not claim that ….”
    YECer: “It totally does!” (provides some creacrap link).
    MSP: “Your source is lying and hence you are violating your own 9th Commandment “.(provides scientific source).
    YECer: “I am not a liar!”
    MSP: “Oh? I thought you were a christian and hence a sinner? Lying is a sin so unless you are the second Jesus you are a liar.`

    @TomS: “What surprised me at first”
    Like everything creacrappers only accept Sola Sctiptura when it suits them.

    @Mega: “The rocks are indeed …`
    You beat me today.

    @TomS objects: “The fossils don’t come with tags.”.
    If creacrappers like Ol´Hambo can use metaphors like this one than so can we.

  14. I have no problem with metaphors. But let’s remember that they are metaphors.

  15. I totally concur.

  16. Hambo notes

    nearly every week there’s at least one story claiming that everything we knew about the evolution of such-and-such a creature needs to be rewritten in light of a new find, study, or perspective on a find.

    Yep, that’s an old issue with Chinese dinosaur fossils: an hour after finding one, you want to dig up another.

  17. Megalonyx, how would you know anything about eating Chinese food? The only food eaten by your species is bananas.

  18. “… they have the wrong starting point …”. I thought their starting point for ‘historical science’ was physical evidence. And I thought that Ken Ham thought that physical, natural evidence was part of God’s creation.