Hambo Debunks Human Evolution

Once again, we are privileged to learn creation science 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 the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Human Evolution Re-Written Yet Again. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

An article appeared recently in the “Space + Science” section of CNN’s website. This piece was titled, “Ancient humans are having a moment — Here are the fascinating things we’re learned this week about our ancestors.” The lengthy article then described a series of discoveries and, more importantly, their interpretations, as it relates to our supposed evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Our “supposed” evolution. We’re off to a good start! Then he says:

Several of these studies change what evolutionists thought they knew [Hee hee!] about our ancestry. One week and humanity’s evolutionary story is rewritten … again (as it has been again, and again, and again, and again . . .)!

Those evolutionists are such fools! Hambo tells us:

For example, the article discussed three so-called “hominids” — Homo erectus, Paranthropus, and Australopithecus. Really, this is one human (Homo) and two ape varieties. [Yeah!] According to a new study, these three “species,” which they refer to as “types of humans” even though two are clearly ape, lived at the same time in the same area. Then they claim this happened:

[Hambo quotes from CNN:] During the time all three species lived in the same area, they endured climate change as it shifted from warm and humid to cool and dry. Trees gave way to grasslands. Homo erectus simply moved on, more mobile on two legs. Paranthropus had to settle for foods that were less appealing. And the time for Australopithecus was at an end.

How do they know? Were they there? Hambo continues:

So this story that they’ve spun from a few bone fragments means that, within their worldview, humans and now-extinct apes lived at the same time. But only the humans, in this story, were intelligent enough to move on as the climate changed. This changes their story once again [Again?]; after all, Australopithecus (think “Lucy”) was originally considered an ancestor to humans but now they’ve reinterpreted the evidence and believe her species was living at the same time as Homo erectus, a supposed “early” human.

Those hell-bound Darwinists change their story every hour! Let’s read on:

What this CNN article really highlights is the shifting sands of evolution — it’s a constantly changing story. Now many evolutionists will say that’s because that’s how science works — old ways of thinking are always being discarded or refined as we discover new things. [That sounds reasonable.] But that’s really not what we see when it comes to evolution.

Hambo tells us what we really see:

What we really witness is an idea so elastic that it doesn’t matter if the data or a new find totally contradicts everything they thought before — they just fit the story to accommodate the new data. And then they change it again in a year when a new find changes everything. Why does the model change so often? Because it’s built on flawed assumptions about the past! And it’s a blind-faith belief — a religion.

A blind-faith religious belief? Than it must be wrong! Here’s another excerpt:

Observational evidence actually confirms God’s Word. [Yeah!] Biblical creationists are making testable predictions about the history of humanity, and the data is confirming these predictions!

You believe Hambo, don’t you? Of course you do! He finishes by telling us about some podcasts he’s making:

I’ve been hosting a series of livestreams with Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a cell and developmental biologist on our research team. [Ooooooooooooh! A creation scientist!] So far we have done six in the series (with more to come), each one building on the last and writing a new history of the human race from a study of genetics. It’s astounding to see how the genetic data confirms what we’d expect starting with God’s Word, and totally confounds evolutionary ideas about humanity. I strongly encourage you to watch and share them (you can find all six parts in this playlist). Here is part one [embedded at the end of his post]:

That’s it, dear reader. Now you have a choice. Which do you prefer — the wildly changing tale of the evolutionists, or the unchanging Truth told by ol’ Hambo? Think carefully before making your decision, because the consequences will be eternal.

Copyright © 2020. 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

15 responses to “Hambo Debunks Human Evolution

  1. Ham doesn’t know the half of it. Evolutionists really have sick minds. Now they are saying that we got lots of our genes through inter-species hanky-panky: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.043786v1 . I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

  2. Hambonian australian cracker writes “One week and humanity’s evolutionary story is rewritten … again (as it has been again, and again, and again, and again . . .)……………….somebody call Toyota, GM, IBM, and all the worlds management professionals and tell them continuous improvement is stupid.
    In fact its clear that, according to Hammy, everyone should stay stupid (while contributing to his business (ahem) “ministry”.

  3. “Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a cell and developmental biologist on our research team.” Research team. Perhaps you’ve seen the pictures of the scientists hard at work in the bowels of the Creation Museum, with their Bunsen burners and centrifuges going, and their other research tools surrounding them as they work hard on not making any improvements to our knowledge.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Data fabrication team is more appropriate – even on the best days it is a data mining (sifting research by real scientists for apologetic nuggets) team.

  5. To point out one misconception: Species X can be an ancestor to species Y and still live at the same time. Speciation does not entail total replacement. The example of dogs evolving from wolves may help to understand this.

  6. @TomS, Interesting.Of course, dogs have been evolving far more rapidly than wolves. In general, if we assign the last common ancestor of species X and Y to species A, then somewhere along the lines of descent A to X , and A to Y, we have to say there has been a change of species, but this might be (and I suspect generally will be) at different times. And A might also survive relatively unchanged in some refugium where it has not been subjected to the same evolutionary pressures. Using the language analogy, I would be surprised if French had not become distinct from Latin earlier than Italian, in view of the differences, while Lain itself has survived little changed in specialised locations

  7. “an idea so elastic that it doesn’t matter if the data or a new find totally contradicts everything they thought before”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    No, Ol’Hambo, it totally doesn’t matter if we find a humanoid fossil that’s 100 million years old.

    “Biblical creationists are making testable predictions about the history of humanity”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Like the observational evidence we get when doing radiometry! The only testable prediction with creacrap involved that’s correct is Ol’Hambo mumbling “not reliable because reasons”.

  8. Theodore Lawry

    “…new history of the human race from a study of genetics. It’s astounding to see how the genetic data confirms what we’d expect starting with God’s Word,”
    Really, does genetics reveal that the human race consisted of two individuals 6,000 years ago, and 8 people 4,500 years ago? Does it reveal how the descendants of those 8 diverged into the enormous diversity of modern humans, from Eskimos to Zulus? And not just humans, but all the other species too? This sounds like a staggering multiple Nobel Prize project/accomplishment! Nathaniel Jeanson, Nobel laureate in Medicine, Ham in what, World Peace? Bring it on!
    Do creationists even listen to themselves, let alone anyone else?

  9. Michael Fugate

    Like the prediction that males have 1 fewer ribs than females?

    Or this classic paper by an engineer on creationist genetics… don’t take the Bible literally if it contradicts observable science?

    Click to access serve_pdf_free.php

  10. Dave Luckett

    There’s a faint, but discernable, scent of desperation here. The evidence keeps accumulating. The story of human ancestry keeps getting clearer. The main lines are becoming ever more evident. More hominids keep turning up – most of them, as the theory predicts, cousins and side branches, or re-braiding streams, but there they are – and not a single one is mentioned in Scripture.

    Ham recapitulates his own knowledge with his “two of them are apes and one is human” jibe. That’s idiotically wrong, of course. All three are apes, but one is judged close enough to modern humans to be described as a hominid, although H erectus is not a modern human. That’s a judgement of similarity – on very technical morphological terms, to be sure, but still a judgement. It’s exactly the sort of judgement that the Theory of Evolution predicts. Is this population sufficiently reproductively isolated to be considered a separate species? Obviously, the answer will sometimes be obscure. This is a process, not a fiat transformation.

    And of course, as TomS points out, a population can live concurrently with an extant one while it separates, becoming more reproductively isolated until it is definitely a separate species, and then live concurrently with the continuing population of the original species, which might then at some later date become extinct. Ham’s misconception is only another version of that old clunker, “If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

    That’s so hardy a perennial that it’s a phenomenon in itself. Rooted as it is in the “Great Chain of Being”, it has been so stubbornly resistant to simple debunking as to raise the possibility that a substantial proportion of human minds simply can’t think in other than simple linear terms. I wonder what light the psychologists can shed on that?

  11. chris schilling

    Ken’s befuddlement is priceless. In effect: how can ancestral and descendant species possibly be extant, co-existing at the same time?

    BWAHAHAHA! Ken still thinks speciation is supposed to be orthogenetic, an idea Ken’s creationist “ancestors” blithely rejected anyway, when they thought that was the preferred evolutionary model. I vaguely recall the “ladder” model from my childhood, but I haven’t seen it used in forty years. Ken brought it back from the dead! (I also had a sibling who, for a time, lived with our grandfather. Impossible, but true).

    Ken is like the resident idiot on a second-rate sitcom, whose mere appearance alone can be guaranteed to elicit indulgent canned laughter, before he even opens his mouth.

  12. BTW among the things which are not mentioned in the Bible are human populations of the New Worlds, the Americas. It took some work to assimilate their existence into what the Bible said. So much for unchanging truth.

  13. @TomS forgets that important fundagelical law:

    1. Something good? Praise the Lord!
    2. Something bad? Blame Homo Sapiens!

    “So much for unchanging truth.”
    The truth remained unchanged by the discovery of the human populations of the Americas. It’s christians, those incurable sinners, who up to then didn’t interpret the divinely inspired Book correctly.
    That’s why we are so lucky to have Ol’Hambo around, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. We and especially you should count our blessings; Ol’Hambo is one of the greatest.

  14. @FrankB
    That isn’t the half of it.

    We are confident in understanding that there is design in the eyes of animals which are predotors.
    And also in the eyes of predators.

    We know about the designer of the regularitieis of nature.
    We know that there is a designer who peforms things ehich break the regularities of nature.

    There are things which are vastly beyond theccapabilities of any human design.
    Therefore, these tings must be the product of design.

    And on and on.

  15. Hambo tells us what we really see:
    What we really witness is an idea so elastic that it doesn’t matter if the data or a new find totally contradicts everything they thought before — they just fit the story to accommodate the new data.

    Hambo is sort of right. To take an extreme case, suppose we find well-authenticated cases of the long-sought Precambrian rabbit. Obviously, much of what we thought we knew about the history of life and of related fields was seriously wrong. After maybe decades or more of intensive, and very interesting, research, we would probably have a theory which fit everything we know now as well as what we had learned about the Precambrian rabbit and whatever else had turned up.
    What are the chances that this new theory would include a 6000-year old flat earth with a firmament separating the waters above from the waters below?