Hambo Explains the Origin of Flowers

Once again, dear reader, we turn to 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 the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Is the Origin of Flowering Plants a Mystery? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Researchers have announced [World’s Oldest Flower Unfurled Its Petals More Than 174 Million Years Ago] what they believe to be the oldest flowering plant, a flower with a tree-shaped style and spoon-shaped petals from the early Jurassic, some supposed 174 million years ago.

That’s absurd! It’s blasphemy! The Earth isn’t anywhere near that old! But have no fear, dear reader. Hambo will clarify the situation for us. He says:

The fossils of this plant were examined with high-powered microscopes that revealed it was an angiosperm, a specific group of plants that have flowers and enclosed seeds. One researcher describes the origin of angiosperms as a long “academic headache,” and the lead author of this new paper on this fossilized flower comments,

[Hambo quotes from the article, which quotes lead author Qiang Fu:] Researchers were not certain where and how flowers came into existence, because it seems that many flowers just popped up in the Cretaceous from nowhere. … Studying fossil flowers, especially those from earlier geologic periods, is the only reliable way to get an answer to these questions.

The “only reliable way”? That researcher is a Darwinist fool! Hambo tells us:

But it’s not hard to explain why flowering plants just “popped up” out of nowhere when you start with the correct foundation, God’s Word. [Yes, oh yes!] God created flowering plants, along with the other plants, on day three of creation week.

Bless you, Hambo! His wisdom continues:

These flowers were buried during the global flood of Noah’s day. Their location in the fossil record tells us nothing about their origin; it merely gives us more details about the flood and the order in which it buried the creatures and plants of that time.

Right! That’s all the fossil record reveals. Let’s read on:

The “only reliable way,” to use the words of the author quoted above, to answer questions of origins isn’t to dig deeper into the fossil record (which isn’t a record of time anyway). It’s to dig deeper into God’s Word, the eyewitness account of the history of the earth and the universe.

And now we come to the end:

Once we have God’s Word as the foundation for our thinking, we have the basis for building the correct worldview and then looking at the observational evidence and making sense of it.

Verily, the wisdom of Hambo never fails to amaze us. To doubt him is to embrace eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Copyright © 2019. 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

29 responses to “Hambo Explains the Origin of Flowers

  1. Breaking news: IDiocy has been proven. The human elbow is exactly in the right position to lift a glass of wine. Had the elbow been placed higher or lower it would have resulted in serious problems. As the human elbow is older than glass and wine it has been placed there by a Grand Old Designer.
    (Apparently Benjamin Franklin is responsible for this remarkable observation).

  2. I do love the way that Ham helps us keep up to date on the science

  3. It’s amazing how the flood arranged the remains of living things so as to give the impression of evolution. Just like the Cambrian rabbit, a Cambrian flower would do just fine to upend things. Perhaps Hambo can tell us where to find such fossils, all-knowing as he seems to be.

  4. @Paul braterman

    I hate to admit I kind of use him an aggregator of latest science news. He (his staff actually) spends all the time finding stuff, then I just click on the links and ignore what they have to say about it.

  5. YE creationism seems to be on the increase. Yesterday I went to one of their talks at a local Baptist church, just to stay up to date. Twenty years ago he wouldn’t have been able to give that talk. Perhaps not even ten years ago. The lies coming out, with the greatest of confidence, were unreal. He repeatedly reminded people to get their information only from the creation.com website. And the money on DVD sales was flowing …..

  6. Don’t be silly, @Scientist. Flowering plants, like rabbits, simply ran uphill to avoid the approaching floods, which is why we don’t find them in the lower sediments.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Their location in the fossil record tells us nothing about their origin; it merely gives us more details about the flood and the order in which it buried the creatures and plants of that time.

    Ignore the fossil record, but it merely gives us more details??? Sounds as doublespeak as it gets.

  8. @Hans435, where was this? In Scotland, and I believe in the US, Baptists are heavily though not universally into YEC on grounds of biblical infallibility

  9. Here in Auckland, New Zealand. Interestingly, there was a great talk on (good) science at a local Catholic church a few weeks back. Catholic churches are also full, whereas Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are slowly dying.

  10. @Scientist & @Paul Braterman
    One of my moments of enlghtenment on YEC was when I realized that the explanation for the ordering of the fossils was hydrodynamic sorting during the Flood, a violaton of the creatonist “second law of thermodynamics”. Indeed, any natural explanation, such as physical properties of the creatures being buried, would violate “thermodynamics”. The only creationist possibility would depend on supernatural intervention, but, for some reason or other, YECs do not want to rely on the supernatural in this case. (I have no idea why they are more comfortable with inconsistency than when with reliance on the supernatural.)

  11. @Hans435, for many decades Catholicism has been sort of okay on evolution. God is behind the show, of course, no I don’t know whether that means point by point intervention, or having set up the game in the first place, and I don’t know how they deal with the problem of our having immortal songs whereas, presumably, our pre-Cambrian ancestors did not

  12. @Paul:

    But the Catholic church still insists that Adam and Eve were real people (now transplanted back to 40K years ago) despite the molecular biology evidence that the smallest human genetic bottleneck was at least 12K individuals. And likewise that same church insists still that demons are real among other absurdities.

  13. Darwin called the origin of flowering plants an “abominable mystery”, and there is still much to learn. It’s always surprised me that IDers and creationists haven’t seized on this like they have the so-called Cambrian explosion of animals. Perhaps there’s a bias against plants I don’t understand.

  14. @Scientist, plants aren’t really alive. Surely you remember that tyrannosaurs were using their teeth to shred the plants they used to live on before the Fall, which according to Hamism is when death came into the world.

    Or maybe they just delicately grazed on the leaves and branches, making sure that the plant survived. A good topic for further research

  15. Back in the day, it was quite common for the angels to have a flower in their button-hole. That’s no doubt where this example came from.

    @Zetopan To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church doesn’t insist on Adam and Eve nor 40K years, though wouldn’t be at all surprised if some were singing that tune.

  16. @Tedinoz
    That’s right, the Catholic church doesn’t insist on Adam & Eve, nor on a specific time frame. But there is a whole spectrum of Catholics from accepting all of science, right down to YE and even geocentricism.

    Concerning killing plants, perhaps the guys only ate fruit. This would confirm my theory that dinosaurs with their huge teeth were designed to live on a diet of coconuts.

  17. @hans435
    Yes, there are Catholics prominent in the geocentrism movement. They were disappointed with the ruling in favor of Galileo by the Pope. (Although they correctly point out that the Pope didn’t go so far as to apologize.)
    There is also a small movement which considers some or all of the popes after Pius XII (died 1958) as heretics or illegitimate or something bad. See the Wikipedia artilcle “Sedevacantism” for more than you could care to know.

  18. @TomS
    I specifically mean the ‘new’ geocentrists, a movement of the last few years. Robert Sungenis made the idea popular. They accept a huge universe with the earth at its centre, not just the sun going round the earth. https://newbostonpost.com/2015/08/19/debunking-the-new-geocentrists/

  19. @hans435
    Yes, we are talking about the same. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on Sungenis.
    On the topic of geocentrism, I am interested in hearing about the results from the Gaia space craft, which is measuring parallaxes not dependent on any assumptions of the rotation of the Earth.

  20. @TomS needs an idea: “(….. why they are more comfortable with inconsistency than when with reliance on the supernatural.)”
    Because even the most devout believer cannot afford anymore to ignore the success of science and needs it to give his/her personal prejudices some credibility.

    @PaulB and others: the RCC is wrestling with a historical Adam and Eve.

    http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

    quotes Humani Generis from 1950:

    “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”
    This in the end is pretty anti-evolution. However there is much more room for scientific discussion within the RCC then many unbelievers assume (pretty recently our own SC once again became way too close to the untruth that Giordano Bruno was a martyr for science – he was a martyr for his particular theology). So it’s probably fair to say that the RCC is undecided yet on this topic.
    A bit of googling found me some catholic FETers.

    http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/

  21. Regarding the RCC and a “real” Adam and Eve, the church has moved on.

    This Is good, sensible (short) summary from the Archdiocese of Baltimore (USA). https://www.archbalt.org/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve/

  22. @Tedinoz, thanks. “The 1993 instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’ calls the historical-critical method ‘essential’ and rejects explicitly a fundamentalist reading of Scripture.”

    That is huge. In principle, it brings the Church in line with modern scholarship in regarding the whole of biblical history up to some time around the beginning of the Two Kingdoms period as mythical. However, I expect they stop short of applying the same reasoning to the Gospels

  23. This Jurassic “flower” is not accepted by the vast majority of paleobotanists in the first place. If it was, it would have appeared in a higher impact journal.

  24. @Ted and PaulB: actually that link doesn’t contradict what I wrote. AfaIk (but I’ll immediately admit that I’m far from an expert) polygenism hasn’t become officially accepted yet. Everything depends on the catholic dogma “The first man was created by God” and its interpretation. Given the time the RCC took to accept evolution in general it will take a while.
    An example of the discussion:

    http://blog.adw.org/2013/10/polygenism-is-problematic-a-catholic-caution-on-another-aspect-of-evolutionary-theory/

    As a staunch unbeliever I’m hardly interested, all the more because it avoids any creacrap stupidity and hence cannot be properly mocked. In other words: it’s serious and well thought stuff.

  25. Paul, you were probably referring to the classic by brother Morris the younger, Are plants alive?.

  26. Mark Germano

    @Draken: After reading that, I’d be interested in hearing what Morris thought of mushrooms. He sounds like he was a fungi.*

    *Restrictions apply. Pun valid only in the US.

  27. @Draken & Paul
    I wonder how insect-eating plants are classified. I suspect they started off as well behaved plants, but then adopted the sinful way of killing living things after the Fall.