Hambo Solves an Abominable Mystery

There has never been anyone like Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. You’ll be amazed by what he just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry. His modest headline is Ken Ham Solves Great Paleontological Mystery. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Tucked away in the corner of a museum in Japan is a slab of limey shale. This rock features something incredible — 259 fish, with scales, eyes, and fins — frozen as if in mid-swim. It appears these fish were preserved in the position they were in the instant they died. But how on earth is this possible? Fossil experts are confused, but I’ve solved the mystery!

What a great guy! That fossil was discussed in this article at PhysOrg two weeks ago: Evidence found of fish swimming in unison 50 million years ago. They mention a paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Inferring collective behaviour from a fossilized fish shoal, which you can’t read without a subscription.

But what Hambo refers to as an incredible mystery isn’t regarded as particularly mysterious by PhysOrg. They say:

The specimens in the slab appeared to be juveniles, but there was no evidence indicating how they had been entombed together and so quickly — the researchers suggest it might have happened as the result of a collapsing underwater sand formation. The researchers were intrigued by the positioning of the fish — almost all of them were swimming in the same direction in a pattern reminiscent of modern fish that swim in uniform schools.

Let’s get back to Hambo. He says:

A recent article reported on the attempt by several experts to discover how this fossil, found in the Green River Formation, was formed (and I encourage you to go to the article and see the photo — it’s a truly incredible fossil!).

He describes the mystery:

One expert, who has studied other fossils from the Green River Formation, said that the school of fish probably died together because of a volcanic eruption, a mass of oxygen-poor water, or a temperature shift, and then all the fish fell to the bottom of the lake and were aligned by the current and then fossilized. But mathematical models appear to rule out this explanation. Others have suggested maybe a collapsed sand dune buried them, but they admitted “they don’t have a great explanation.”

But I do!

Ooooooooooooh! Hambo has solved the mystery! He explains:

Since I start with the history in God’s Word, I have the proper lens with which to view the world. This school of fish was catastrophically buried by water-borne sediments during the immediate aftermath of the global flood of Noah’s day. It’s no great mystery!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You didn’t see that coming, did you?

Skipping a few paragraphs of detail about the Flood, he finishes with this:

The processes we observe in the present don’t explain what we see in the fossil record. But the Bible’s history explains what we see in the world. It explains the fossil record!

Ooooooooooooh! Hambo is so wise!

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

16 responses to “Hambo Solves an Abominable Mystery

  1. Michael Fugate

    That almost made me laugh as much as when Peter Navarro on NPR this morning claimed that the President always tells the truth. Almost.

  2. Theodore Lawry

    Creationists are always making this mistake. The fish are all the same species. That fact, plus the great number buried in close proximity, all still facing in the same direction, shows that a school of fish was killed and buried by a process that was not violent enough to disperse their bodies or even disturb the direction they were facing. Compare that to the Flood, which supposedly created vast deposits of sedimentary rocks covering the continents to an average depth of several miles, and yet was too calm to disturb little fish! Does Ham even think about what he says?

  3. Dave Luckett

    Theodore Lawry: Of course Ham thinks about what he says. He thinks, “How can I pervert some piece of evidence of the past to argue confirmation of what I want the past to be, in a manner that would impress people who don’t know anything about it?”

    He also thinks, “But if that argument is so flimsy and irrational as not to impress even the rubes I’m pitching to, I can always say that there is no evidence of the past except eyewitness testimony.”

    Then: “And if it be pointed out that I haven’t got that, either, I just call on the invisible omniscient Witness, but it doesn’t matter, because anybody sharp enough to say such a thing isn’t what I’m looking for, anyway.”

    See, it’s all good.

  4. This one’s for you, Kenny!

  5. BTW, note that there is at least ONE fish swimming the opposite direction.

    There’s always one……

    If it hadn’t died, I’d suspect was a great ancestor that my son takes after… 🙂

  6. @Dave Luckett
    May I suggest that when we hear dumb commentaries, they are looking for an audience who is going to buy anything.
    Like when you get one of those phone calls saying that they’re to fix your credit card, and you think, how dumb do they think I am – they are filtering out people who are they don’t want to have to spend time on to convince.
    Those preachers don’t want people in the pews who are going to think.
    The politician who says obvious lies doesn’t want followers who think. He knows that they take up too much in the way of resources.
    And the advertiser is happy to have an audience which has been pre-sorted for gullibility.

  7. “Since I start with the history in God’s Word, I have the proper lens with which to view the world.”

    Yeah, a fish-eye lens, which distorts everything.

  8. Dave Luckett

    TomS: “I shall make you fishers of men,” said Jesus. And fishers are very careful about their nets and where they use them. The weave and the ground has to be chosen to take only the fish they want, and the overall area of the net has to suit their method of casting it. If Ham’s arguments were complex, academic, rigorous and detailed, they would only bore and alienate the people he wants to attract, for Ham is really only interested in a small minority of the fish population. But he has a method for casting a very big net indeed. An internet, so to speak.

    We think of the obvious defects in Ham’s argument, above, as bugs. But for Ham, they’re features, performing a useful function: sorting out the marks.

  9. Steve Gerrard

    You didn’t see that coming, did you?

    That Hambo was going to invoke The Flood? No, no idea that at all that might be coming…

    This school of fish was catastrophically buried by water-borne sediments during the immediate aftermath of the global flood of Noah’s day.

    I don’t think Hambo realizes that explaining this unusual school formation with the flood does not support his view well. If it was The Flood, why is this the only example? Why don’t we see hundreds of school-of-fish fossils? If The Flood explains this, it doesn’t explain anything else.

    Perhaps he would suggest there was something unusual going on with this particular school – like a collapsing sand dune. But then he would just be agreeing with the scientists, so that wouldn’t work out too well either.

  10. @TomS: “Those preachers don’t want people in the pews who are going to think.”
    What amazes me is that these people keep on refusing to think. When I got interested in creacrap the first thing I did was visiting sites like AIG and the Discotute outfit. Only then I started reading TalkOrigins and some books. But creationists hardly ever do; only a few “experts” search sources for quotes to mine.

    @SteveG: “I don’t think Hambo realizes that explaining this unusual school formation with the flood does not support his view well. ”
    I don’t think he cares.

  11. Always amazing how Hambo and his kind know so much more than the scientists! He doesn’t realize (or care) that his “lens” is badly cracked. As with too many politicians today, facts and logic don’t matter. I fear for the future.

  12. Karl Goldsmith

    So the fish died in a flood.

  13. @Scientist
    My current favorite passage in Scripture in the 2nd Epistle of Peter, chapter 2. Read the chapter in full, to get the full context, but a few snippets (from the NRSV)
    “… many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words …” vv. 2-3
    “… They slander what they do not understand …” v. 12
    .”… They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed.” v. 14
    ” For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; …” vv. 18-19

  14. @TomS. It seems that every generation finds fault with the new generation and fears for the future. But, of course, life goes on and progress is made. That said, the consequences of human caused climate change are far more dangerous than insatiable sin and licentious desires. Corruption will only make matters worse. Sigh.

  15. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    There’s more here (two posts dated 14 June:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1860

  16. “This school of fish was catastrophically buried by water-borne sediments during the immediate aftermath of the global flood of Noah’s day. It’s no great mystery!” Would this likewise have happened during a synchronized swimming movie shoot from the 1930’s.