For Tough Questions, the Answer Is Creationism

The science news website PhysOrg recently had this article: The first duckbill dinosaur fossil from Africa hints at how dinosaurs once crossed oceans. They report on a paper published in Cretaceous Research titled The first duckbill dinosaur (Hadrosauridae: Lambeosaurinae) from Africa and the role of oceanic dispersal in dinosaur biogeography, and they tell us:

The first fossils of a duckbilled dinosaur [Ajnabia odysseus] have been discovered in Africa, suggesting dinosaurs crossed hundreds of kilometres of open water to get there. … Ajnabia was a member of the duckbill dinosaurs, diverse plant-eating dinosaurs that grew up to 15 meters long. But the new dinosaur was tiny compared to its kin — at just 3 meters long, it was as big as a pony.

Duckbills evolved in North America and eventually spread to South America, Asia, and Europe. Because Africa was an island continent in the Late Cretaceous, isolated by deep seaways, it seemed impossible for duckbills to get there.

[…]

Because Africa was isolated by deep oceans at the time, duckbills must have crossed hundreds of kilometres of open water – rafting on debris, floating, or swimming — to colonise the continent. Duckbills were probably powerful swimmers — they had large tails and powerful legs, and are often found in river deposits and marine rocks, so they may have simply swum the distance.

You’re probably wondering what a creationist would make of this dinosaur discovery. Well, prepare to be enlightened. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — has an article on this, titled Even Sherlock Holmes Can’t Explain African Dinosaurs.

It was written by Tim Clarey — that links to ICR’s bio info on him. We first wrote about Timmy in Meet ICR’s Creationist Geologist. Now he’s going to tell us how this fossil ended up in Africa. He says:

A new species of duck-billed dinosaur, Ajnabia odysseus, was recently unearthed in North Africa. This is the first hadrosaur-type dinosaur ever discovered on the continent of Africa, and it creates a conundrum for evolutionary scientists [Gasp!] because its location doesn’t fit their narrative.

Oh no — Darwinism is doomed! Timmy tells us:

Secular scientists [The hell-bound fools!] believe that the hadrosaur kind dispersed from Asia to Europe and then to Africa. But, the big question is how? According to uniformitarian scientists, Africa was an isolated island continent at the end of the Cretaceous, with deep oceans for hundreds of miles in every direction.

Timmy is enjoying himself. He continues:

Locked into uniformitarian thinking [No miracles allowed!], secular scientists have to resort to the near impossible, suggesting that these dinosaurs swam across hundreds of miles of open ocean and/or floated on rafts of debris for weeks or months. But did they forget the oceans are filled with salt water? How could any large land animal swim or float across the open sea without a fresh water source or significant food for weeks or longer? And why would a dinosaur swim out to sea or climb on a debris raft without land in sight?

Timmy then provides us with the only conceivable answer:

Genesis provides a much more reasonable solution. Evolutionary scientists deliberately forget that there was a global Flood. [Yes, the Flood!] Dinosaurs would have been buried swiftly in mud and sand as tsunami-like waves washed across the continents. Often, they were mixed with marine fossils and even buried in marine rocks. The continents also split and moved rapidly away from one another during the year-long catastrophe, preserving the fossils of duck-billed dinosaurs on separate continents, including Africa.

That’s obviously how it happened! Let’s read on:

No long-range swimming by hadrosaurs is necessary in this explanation. In fact, the fossils of these dinosaurs demonstrate that they couldn’t swim well enough to escape the rising floodwaters, let alone swim across hundreds of miles of open ocean. Even Sherlock was willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Those who are willing to do the same will see that true science confirms exactly what we read in Genesis. The Flood was the reason for these and nearly all fossils.

Ooooooooooooh! Timmy is so wise, and those secular scientists are so stupid! If you don’t agree, dear reader, you’ll be spending your eternity in the Lake of Fire!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “For Tough Questions, the Answer Is Creationism

  1. Michael Fugate

    Locked into creationist thinking [miracles allowed!], apologists have to resort to the near impossible, suggesting that a wooden boat filled with 1000s of animals and a tiny crew navigated across hundreds of miles of open ocean for weeks or months. But they forget the continents are thousands of kilometers apart and animals had a few short years to migrate long distances. Not only that almost all marsupials had to end up in Australia among other biogeographic oddities. Creationism makes no sense in an earth and a universe as big as ours.

  2. “secular scientists have to resort to the near impossible”
    But this is the entire point of creacrap – that the (near) impossible is made possible by their god. Like

    “there was a global Flood”
    with enormous amounts of water coming out of nowhere.
    Or, as MichaelF already pointed out, the South-American sloth traveling to the Middle East and back.

  3. Those tsunami-like waves washing over continents, they left undistirbed those coproliths, footprints, nests of eggs, etc.

  4. The geologists I have spoken to do not suppose that they, or their collieagues, have mapped every island, every archipelago in the ancient oceans. Even a relatively transient group of islands – a few hundred thousand years above water because of local vulcanism and coral growth – would provide stepping stones.

    And observe, please, the squib: “The explanation for this phenomenon does not immediately occur to me. Therefore, the explanation must be God.”

    Michael Fugate: A wooden vessel the size of the Ark surviving at sea for a year is not “near impossible”. It is flat blank common-or-garden impossible. It’s beyond the strength of materials. It defies the known laws of physics accounting for the effect of length on a lever. Such a vessel would leak heavily on even a calm sea as its seams worked, but the first rough weather would tear it apart. Every day it survived would require another miracle.

    “The continents also split and moved rapidly away from one another during the year-long catastrophe”, says this idiot. Can the amount of energy required for this be calculated? Certainly, quite closely. But the zeroeth law of thermodynamics says “Energy is neither created nor destroyed”. Where does this energy go, then? Well, energy expended in overcoming friction is expressed as heat. Can the heat produced by such prodigious movements be calculated? Again, certainly, fairly closely – and it is enough to boil the oceans and liquefy the surface of the continents. Stormy weather at sea would be the least of Noah’s worries.

    But of course, at such an objection the creationist retreats into the final fortress and hauls up the drawbridge. A miracle is defined as God abrogating the natural order at His Will. God is omnipotent. He can do anything.

    So, faced with a fairly small problem – how did some dinosaurs get to Africa – the creationist boggles, but when faced with a whole series of impossibilities requiring miracles on a vastly greater scale, the creationist unhesitatingly selects the latter. Because God.

    Actually, no, not because God. Because some set of scribes in the fifth or so century BCE thought it instructive to repeat a much older story they’d heard. Nothing more than that. But the creationist thinks it’s “because God”, and that’s enough – more than enough – to shut his mind down completely.

  5. @Dave Luckett
    Don’t blame some writers of the Ancient Near East. Rather blame some readers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

  6. “….. of the 20th and 21st centuries”
    who promote their particular theology by declaring that only “science” that seems to confirm said theology is acceptable.
    Like Timmy.

  7. Gawd can make a miracle of a non-workable wooden boat holding 100s but this same omni-everything gawd could not snap his fingers to end everything he was piss about!!

  8. TomS. that’s exactly what I’m saying. The scribes who wrote this story down four or five centuries BCE almost certainly thought they were retelling a story with instructive and moral purpose and meaning. It’s some contemporary and recent readers who think that they are reading actual history.

    Story, which I always find instructive myself. When King Alfred the Great of Wessex commissioned a collection of the body of annals that became known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the monks of Winchester began it with a statement of who Alfred was. They traced his ancestry back fourteen generations – twice seven, a magical number – to Wotan. Yes, that Wotan, the Teutonic god.

    Now, these were pious Christian monks. They didn’t believe in any pagan gods. But there it is for everyone to read: Alfred was the distant descendant of Wotan. The writers knew that wasn’t true. But they also knew that they weren’t dealing in history, there – and probably not in the earliest annals of the ASC, either. They were retelling legend. They were doing it in a work that was mainly concerned – they hoped – with real history, but they didn’t draw a clear dividing line between the two. There really wasn’t one, as far as they were concerned.

    They were defining themselves and their people..They were saying where they came from. For that purpose, history and legend were both involved, and there was no clear distinction between them. I think the Hebrew scribes who wrote Genesis had much the same attitude.

    I suppose you could blame the scientific revolution for biblical literalism, too. Science has performed such marvels, these last five centuries, by unsparing and rigorous description of reality, that the creationists want to claim the same qualities for their texts. But if you blamed science for that, you’d be misplacing the blame. Aesop told the story of the frog that tried to blow himself up to the size of the ox – and instead blew himself apart. Creationism is that frog.

  9. @Dave Luckett
    We are in agreement.
    I recommend this book:
    The Bible As It Was
    James L. Kugel
    Belknap Press Harvard 1997
    It gives many examples of how people read the Bible from a few centuries around the BCE-CE divide. The original audience of the Bible. We can see how that audience read the Bible.

  10. Michael Fugate

    Speaking of fairy tales and myths, creationists and Trump supporters cut from the same cloth. Claim you believe in the literal text – whether the Bible of the US Constitution – and then just make it up as you go along. The ends justify the means when winning is the only thing that matters… 20,000+ lies and no end in sight…