Hambo Says the Grand Canyon Proves the Bible

We found a nice, goofy title at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title is Tour the Grand Canyon from a Biblical Perspective. It’s at ol’ Hambo’s personal blog, so presumably he wrote it himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We recently had a special guest speaker at one of our regular staff meetings, Jon Albert, the head of Canyon Ministries [link omitted]. This ministry conducts tours of the Grand Canyon that teach geology from a Christian worldview [Wowie!], from the foundation of the Genesis accounts of creation and the global flood. And you can join them for a bus or hiking tour in Northern Arizona.

Isn’t this exciting? Hambo says:

Over the years, AiG has held several dozen raft trips on the Colorado River and through the Canyon with Canyon Ministries. I’ve been on one of the shorter raft trips, and it was a thrill. [No doubt.]

Then he tells us:

Staff geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling and historian of geology and theologian Dr. Terry Mortenson have been on dozens of these raft trips with Canyon Ministries. Other AiG speakers and researchers, including astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner and popular speaker Bryan Osborne, have also led several of these trips.

He continues:

Our 2020 raft trips are already sold out (they have been for a while!). [Oh, how disappointing!] But I encourage you to look at the possibility of taking a rim tour on one of Jon’s small buses (seating 13 people each) or taking a guided hike and discovering how the remarkable Grand Canyon confirms the biblical history.

Wow — the Grand Canyon confirms the bible! Your geology professors never told you that, did they? Let’s read on:

If you’d like to join a raft trip that is sold out, you can be added to the waitlist at [link omitted].

Don’t delay, dear reader. Get on that waitlist! Here’s another excerpt:

We’re thrilled to be able to work with other like-minded organizations, like Canyon Ministries. [Who wouldn’t be thrilled?] This ministry complements ours in a specialty area by running these educational tours at the Grand Canyon (with teaching based on flood geology). [Ooooooooooooh! Flood geology!] We highly recommend these tours to our supporters.

Well, dear reader — what are you waiting for? Oh, wait — here’s a little bit more:

Find out more about this excellent ministry at [link omitted].

You probably didn’t know that the Grand Canyon is evidence for the bible, did you? Now you know, so hurry and take one of those tours. And tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

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

28 responses to “Hambo Says the Grand Canyon Proves the Bible

  1. Timothy Shane Norfolk

    And the explanation for the fossilized raindrop marks in the middle layers is…?

  2. Michael Fugate

    This ministry conducts tours of the Grand Canyon that teach geology from a Christian worldview, from the foundation of the Genesis accounts of creation and the global flood.

    “Christian”? Christian doesn’t equal whatever nonsense the über-arrogant, uber-narcissistic, uber-hubristic Ham believes.

  3. Wow, it sounds as if us nasty atheists have been overlooking this wonderful proof of the work of Hambone’s favorite god person. I’m astonished the hammy favorite god-thing book doesn’t tell people to trek on over to the the Grand Canyon to see the proof of his unbelievable miracle. I’m sure Noah would let them re-purpose his amazing sea-worthy ark to help them get there.

  4. How can “historical science” prove anything?

  5. Their claim dates back to 1995: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Canyon-Monument-Catastrophe-Austin/dp/0932766331/ref=sr_1_3

    Austin (of CMI) does use one sciency argument, about the very old radiometric dates for neogene volcanoes. IIRC (I’m away from my books) he is using whole rock dating (thus dating the magma) as if it were single grain dating (which is what is needed to date eruption and cooling).

  6. @TimSN asks: “And the explanation …. is?”
    Goddiddid of courze.

    @TomS asks: “How can “historical science” prove anything?”
    By trusting Ol’Hambo, who’s “the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.” We simple minds just can’t argue with him/that.

  7. Strangely if you examine what the hambone says about the canyon and its formation, illustrates how little he knows about anything and the canyon could NOT have been formed in that manner…A flood that covers the entire world would NOT have drained away in a manner that would make the canyon. And it is very easy to demonstrate it.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Wouldn’t one find a big swirl of sediment as the water went down the drain at the bottom of the ocean?

  9. “Flood geology”, which means “the Flood did it”. Long, deep, narrow, twisty canyons – the Flood. Separated, wide, fan-shaped alluvial washaways – the Flood. Moraines – the Flood. Deep ocean basins – the Flood. Folded, buckled, inclined and faulted strata – the Flood. Many layers of different strata – the Flood. A single iridium-rich stratum – the Flood. Deep soils – the Flood. No soil – the Flood. Deserts and icecaps, swamps and tundra, when the Earth was supposed to be “very good” and we were told to occupy all of it – the Flood. The Flood explains everything.

    It is said that God is all things to all men; the Flood is all things to all geology. In the mind of a creationist, that is.

  10. If staff geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling takes his AiG cap off, he can also act as tour guide for normal people.

  11. @Dave Luckett
    And moreover: We cannot know what happened in the past except by eyewitness account, But the only supposed eyewitness account, the Bible, says nothing about the Flood being responsible for these different geologic features. While. on the other hand, we know that the laws of thermodynamics prevent natural forces from forming complexities of geology (like like ordering of fossils in strata), but hydrodynamic sorting (and other natural forces) account for them.
    And, by the way, the Bible does not claim to be an eyewitness, nor does it rtell us nor zabout the laws of thermodynamics, nor …
    And i’ve lost my way

  12. “Tour the Grand Canyon from a Biblical Perspective” Enrollment in this tour requires that you turn in your brain’s frontal lobe at the ticket counter, burn all your science books and give a million dollar endowment to ICR.

  13. Now, one might expect to find him referencing Dr. Snelling’s awesome work he did on the samples he collected after sueing for the right to collect them.

    But no, still complete silence on the results of his non-peer reviewed work. Maybe he can’t even convince the “creation scientists” ?

  14. I think I’ve said here before, but it bears repeating — fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, necessarily transcribed by the inspired hand of man.

    They also believe that God created the universe and all within it, including the laws of physics and nature that control all interactions.

    That said, why do they believe the Bible, which admittedly is subject to man’s error in transcription, over the evidence that they can see in God’s own direct creation — where man had no influence whatsoever?

    If they hiked down through the canyon from rim to river, they would see layers of cross-bedded sandstone hundreds of feet thick. Cross-bedding only occurs in wind-deposited sand dunes, as are found in deserts. They are not at all deposited by water.

    As they walked through the lowest layers of sedimentary rock, they would discover deposits of stromatolite limestone, the fossilized layers of thick mats of algae. These thick layers could only form if there was nothing present to eat them — no fish, no snails, no trilobites, no animal life of any kind. And the Grand Canyon is not the only place where layers of stromatolites are found — vast deposits of the same (Precambrian) age are also found in northern Canada in the Great Slave Lake region, for instance. Hard to explain if all living creatures were created within one week.

    Hiking down farther takes them through upturned foliated layers of metamorphic schist — a kind of rock that can only form in the heat and pressure found beneath huge mountain ranges. This rock itself was once sedimentary layers of mud and sand, the eroded remnants of still much older mountain ranges. And so it goes. You don’t need to rely on radiometric dating to know that the rocks found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon are immensely older than 6000 years old.

    Of course, the Bible makes no direct statement concerning the age of the Earth, or the universe for that matter. The 6000 year age is all the interpretation of one man, James Ussher ( 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656), the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh.

  15. @Retiredsciguy, Ussher, a notable scholar and generally a good egg in very difficult times (the English Civil War or more accurately, in the opinion of a Scotsman writing about an Irishman, the War of the Three Kingdoms), was following on a long tradition. The 2nd Century CE rabbis counted Anno Mundi from 3760 BCE; al-Biruni agreed.

    Yet al-Biruni’s writing on sedimentology shows that he knew the earth must be far older, Maimonides (who codified the Rabbinical law that still defines traditional observant practice) argued for long periods of time and a non-literal account suited to the original human audience of what he regarded as God’s word transcribed by Moses, and until very recently only a lunatic fringe within Judaism took Anno Mundi seriously

  16. Genesis 1 tells us that the beginning of God’s creation took place when there was a chaos of water and wind. Nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is there a doctrine of creaton “from nothing”.
    There are two other creation stories in the Bible, one which is in Genesis 2, and anther which is just hinted at in scattered refernences, which involves a primordial battle between God and a sea-monster.
    There is another creation story whch has been elaborated on by the mostly 20th century Fundamentalists, which takes up some pieces of modern science, like the heliocentric model of the Solar System, and some ideas dating from Christian writers like Augustine, Dante and Milton.

  17. @TomS, tell me more about God and the sea monster, with Bible references. I’m away from home but will check them out when I get back. I seem to remember something of the kind in Babylonian mythology?

  18. @Paul Braterman
    See “Leviathan” in Wikipedia.

  19. @TomS, thanks. It was Marduk’s slaying of Tiamat that I had in mind.The demotion of leviathan from contender with the god to one of God’s creatures would fit in well with the OT project of overwriting poytheism with, first, henotheism, and then monotheism

  20. Michael Fugate

    I posted this link a week ago – it discusses the multiple creation stories in the Bible.

    An interesting commentary on biblical creation myths
    Is Genesis a rewriting of history?

  21. AfaIk there is largely consensus among scholars that Genesis has borrowed elements from other sources. Your question is only a bit less trivial than 1 + 1 = ?, except for hardcore christian apologists of course (including Ol’Hambo and Klunkcerduncker). Even Wikipedia talks about it.


    What’s new in the Haaretz article is the influence from Asian nomads. As I’ve no desire to subscribe I won’t read what the evidence is. Moreover, as a non-scholar I’m incapable of evaluating it anyway.

  22. Thee is a famous book, described in Wikipedia “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Telating to the Old Trstament”, It isn’t only Genesis – light has been shown on many parts of Hebrew Scriptures once hieroglyphhis and and cuneiform


  23. See the Wikipedia article “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament”.
    In the 19th centiury it became possible to read cuneiform and hieroglyphics. It was a shock to discover that the Hebrew svrptutrs are not unique, original works. Along with tDocumentary Bypothesis, reaction to this was a spur to Fundalis.

  24. @TomS, thanks. That volume was pricey, but Alibris led me to The Ancient Near East (Volume I): an Anthology of Texts and Pictures, $4.74, and The Ancient Near East (Volume II): a New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, $8.45

  25. @Michael Fugate, I have a lot of time for Haaretz, an embattled voice of sanity in Israel. “scholars of comparative religion hypothesize … an original Proto-Indo-European religious myth involving a weather god killing a monster snake and bringing order to the world. Apparently, one or more of these ancient Indo-European people, perhaps the Hittites, brought the myth to the Middle East. Here it was adopted by the Canaanites ”

    Makes sense, though the title is a bit click-baity, since the story refers specifically to the sea monster myth

  26. Michael Fugate

    I just thought the idea that they might have gone back and refitted their original myth with a single God was intriguing.

  27. Paul Braterman:
    “Ussher … was following on a long tradition. The 2nd Century CE rabbis counted Anno Mundi from 3760 BCE; al-Biruni agreed.”

    Thanks, Dr. Braterman, that’s very interesting. Do you know if the rabbis used the same method Ussher used – that is, counting the generations mentioned in the OT?

  28. @retiredsciguy, same method. The discrepancy arises from iffrent interprtations of when the 400-year Egyptian exile was said to have started.

    If you use the Septuagint, the Greek translation madein the 3rd-2nd C BCE for the sophisitcated Jews of Alexandria, you get a thousand years earlier, because the Septuagint cheerfully adds a century here and there to the ages of the patriarchs. I wonder if this was in order to make the Earth old enough to accommodate then-known Egyptian history.

    The discrepancies between the Septuagint and the mainstream Bible continue to provide information for textual scholars. “Our” Bible is based on the Hebrew, which in some places seems to have been modified *after* the Septuagint was compiled. Thus our story of how David joined Saul’s army is a fusion of two accounts, only one fo which occurs in the Septuagint.

    And that is the limit of my own scholarship on the matter