back to article Creationist: The Flintstones was an accurate portrayal of Dino-human coexistence

Ken Ham, an Australian young-Earth creationist, says he is on the verge of proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted only a couple of thousand years ago. According to a report on news.com.au, Ham – along with a Dr David Menton – declared that he will soon publish "world-changing" evidence disproving that dinosaurs were …

  1. Amazon Wageslave

    God give me strength

    Ken Ham's having bother building his replica Ark. His org lost state tax breaks because they were discriminating on religious grounds when hiring staff.

    Yes, staff. Modern technology, expert tradesmen, hundreds of staff and a huge amount of cash, and the project isn't going well. But Ken has faith that a 500-year-old and his family managed it a few thousand years ago.

    1. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

      Re: God give me strength

      Who?

    2. boltar Silver badge

      Re: God give me strength

      Idiotic though these people may be, lets remember than most religious muslims and jews (don't know about hindus, sikhs or other non abrahamic religions) also have a similar scripture driven view about the origins of the earth. Its not restricted to fundamentalist christians. Most of the middle east would probably agree with them and I doubt darwins theory is even taught in many schools there. Thankfully these people are a small minority in the west but its not like that everywhere in the world.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: God give me strength

        If you think they take the Old Testament literally then you haven't met many Jews - they've been discussing and arguing over this stuff for several thousand years. Of course any one group are heavily influenced by their own specific cultural mores, but thats the same for all belief systems.

        1. Phil W

          Re: God give me strength

          I suspect that in reality, most of the leaders of the older core religions (i.e. Judaism, Catholocism, Islam) don't take certain things like their stories of creation literally. It is the more modern (relatively speaking) off shoot religions that seem to have a harder time with this.

          Didn't the Pope make a statement a few years back saying the Bible is not meant to be taken literally? I was sort of hoping, probably in vain, that him saying that may have been the beginning of a shift toward a slightly more enlightened age for religion.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: God give me strength

            "Didn't the Pope make a statement a few years back saying the Bible is not meant to be taken literally?"

            Not quote as dramatic a statement as you might think; the Catholic church is based on "authority", not the Bible per se - its one of the things people like Luther started protesting against. As an uneasy amalgam of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy it ended up being defined by early(ish) thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas.

            On a side note, the Church had no interest in marriage for the first 1000 years of its existence - i.e. it had no involvement at all in what was considered a step down from the superior state of celibacy. So slightly odd to start claiming an exclusive right to define marriage now.

            1. Zuagroasta

              Re: God give me strength

              Any pointers or more detailed info on where I can find the Catholics' original stand on marriage? I need a few more ideas to prove to certain bigots in my life that their insistence on marriage (and their nosing around in my life) is based on total ignorance of their professed religion.

          2. Mike Richards Silver badge

            Re: God give me strength

            'Didn't the Pope make a statement a few years back saying the Bible is not meant to be taken literally? I was sort of hoping, probably in vain, that him saying that may have been the beginning of a shift toward a slightly more enlightened age for religion.'

            The Catholic Church has long held that the power of Genesis lies in metaphor rather than being seen as an accurate description of the creation of the Universe. The first official statement on Darwinism was in 1950 which said that the church had no problems reconciling evolution with doctrine, there is no official position on the age of the Universe, only that it is finite, and it must be remembered the Vatican Observatory is a world-class facility with some top researchers in all astronomical fields.

            The real issue over Young Earth nonsense is with the small Protestant sects who do cleave to a very literal reading of the Bible.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: God give me strength

              wasn't it a Jesuit astronomer who first posited the Big Bang?

          3. Adrian Tawse

            Re: God give me strength

            I went to a Catholic Boarding School where I was taught, in an RE lesson, that The Garden of Eden was a real place, the Adam an Eve where real people and that the Original Sin was sexual. I nearly fell of my chair. I realized that the monk teaching us just had severe sexual hangups. That was the final end to any Religious convictions, I left that room an atheist.

    3. PleebSmash
      Happy

      Re: God give me strength

      It's important to keep these people in the news.

      We all need a reminder of the dangers of magical thinking.

    4. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Me, give me strength

      Ham & his ilk should sleep very well at night. Ham & his ilk dismiss radionuclide dating. Yet the same equation for spontaneous nuclear decay that allows us to date all sorts of things going back billions of years, is the same equation that governs the initiation of a nuclear weapon detonation. You can't have one without the other. So if you don't believe in radionuclide dating, then you have to believe that all this stuff about nuclear weapons is a big hoax & conspiracy theory.

      But of course, Ham & his ilk know nothing of logic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Me, give me strength

        By his reckoning, the omnipotent God can make anything happen: even alter the laws of physics or make things seem like they're already millions of years old when in fact he just put them up. Tests of faith and all that. By this reasoning, you CAN have both at the same time. The bones are just fooling you.

        1. Just Enough
          Angel

          Top banter!

          Yup. God does pranks like making things appear millions of years old, when he's only just made them. He's a right laugh, always pulling tricks on us dumb humans, just cos he can. He and satan are always trying to out do each other, sometimes it's difficult to tell which one is supposed to be the evil one.

          Just don't poke fun at him back. He can dish out the banter, but he can't take it. He's a bit of a jerk, to be honest.

          1. Richard Taylor 2 Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Top banter!

            You need to read early Terry Sci Fi - dinosaur artefacts with ban the bomb placards if I remember properly

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Top banter!

              ..and a real flat earth / techno disk world

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. ravenviz Silver badge

              Re: Top banter!

              "You can prove anything with facts"

              - Stewart Lee

            2. Thorne

              Re: Top banter!

              “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”--Richard Dawkins.

              Sounds like my ex........

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Coat

                Re: Top banter!

                and yet the God of the new testament is so much nicer

          3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Top banter!

            If God altered the Universe to make everything everywhere appear to be billions of years old, then Scientifically, the Universe IS billions of years old because the only clocks there are use physical processes as their timers. (i.e. There's no extra-Universe clock for all of us inside the Universe.) Pretending there is some "real" extra-Universe time is just empty headed intellectual masturbation.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Top banter!

              "If God altered the Universe to make everything everywhere appear to be billions of years old,"

              He did. I have a mobile phone on the their network and it certainly acts like something from pre-history!

        2. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
          Angel

          Re: Me, give me strength

          "the omnipotent God can make anything happen"

          So how do we know that the God of Abraham and the Old Testament is not just a concoction created by the FSM to fool Ham and his ilk?

      2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: Me, give me strength

        Equally, they must never worry about getting flu jabs, because there's no evolution...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There are times that involuntary euthenasia just seems like the best solution.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: There are times that involuntary euthenasia just seems like the best solution

      Are they the times when cowards anonymously call for people they disagree with to be put to death? It's those pathetic cowards we euthanise, yeah?

      1. james 68

        Re: re: There are times that involuntary euthenasia just seems like the best solution

        You realize the irony of your statement I hope? That as an anonymous coward you just called for the previous anonymous coward to be killed because anonymous cowards should be killed for calling for the death of others?

        It's a vicious circle. One that I am strangely happy with.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ james 68, You realize the irony of your statement I hope?

          No, I'm a total fucking moron with no concept of irony. I just like the idea of killing people.

          No concept of sarcasm either, before you ask...

    2. SundogUK

      Seriously? You think people who disagree with you should be murdered?

      1. MrXavia

        Re: "Seriously? You think people who disagree with you should be murdered?"

        It does seem to be the normal order of things...

        (Not that I agree with it)

        1. Peter Simpson 1
          Happy

          Re: "Seriously? You think people who disagree with you should be murdered?"

          Aw...let's go to the stoning.

          1. DanDanDan

            Re: "Seriously? You think people who disagree with you should be murdered?"

            Quiet down Big Nose!

      2. jason 7
        Coat

        Well ...that's why Dictatorships are so easy to do business with. Much more money in it and decisions get made faster.

        Something to be said for it in this day and age...

      3. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
        Linux

        "You think people who disagree with you should be murdered?"

        Only over the choice of an operating system or init daemon.

        1. wallaby

          No point, after 2 weeks of using linux and having to deal with the linux community I was almost happy to do away with myself

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      A truly awful comment, (original) AC. We all learn by discourse, no matter that some people have wacky ideas.

      1. Spleen

        We only learn by discourse if both participants are willing to learn. If A asserts that 2 + 2 = 4 and B asserts that it = 5, A has learnt nothing, except that B is an idiot. And B probably won't learn anything because if he's a grown adult and he thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 he is probably stupid by choice.

        Two paleontologists debating the exact origins of the T-Rex may well learn something, a paleontologist debating with a death-worshipping loony will learn nothing.

        I don't necessarily agree that they should be murdered but arguing with loonies is bad for your health, both physical and mental, and achieves nothing.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          But what if B argues from a different angle, say from the perspective of a gestalt, for example a quartet: greater than just the sum of four performers?

          1. nijam

            > for example a quartet: greater than just the sum of four performers?

            If you're talking about string quartets, I'd say definitely *not* greater!

            1. BongoJoe

              If you're talking about string quartets, I'd say definitely *not* greater!

              Clearly you haven't been introduced to the numbering system as used by Messrs. Lee, Lifeson & Peart.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          But (2+2)* = 5

          * For large values of 2

          1. Michael Dunn
            Joke

            "* For large values of 2"

            OK, and if you take a ruler to ALMA (the Atacama Large Millimetre Array) there's no knowing what you may find!

        3. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

          George Carlin

        4. Cari

          @Spleen - you say "both willing to learn" but follow it up with an example where B is the only one in expected to learn anything. Not really applicable to this, since *both* sides believe themselves to be 100% right, and trust wholeheartedly what they've been told by people they believe have the right answers, despite none of the arseholes involved having time machines.

          Science, archaeology, paleontology etc. don't know all the answers, the hows, and the whys *yet*, and what they do know is always being updated. Pooh-poohing ideas (however ridiculous sounding) because they don't line up with your beliefs, instead of investigating and debunking, doesn't help progress. And through questioning, debunking, investigating, we are constantly learning and updating our knowledge of this planet's history, correcting inaccurate or just plain wrong explanations of both the religious AND the scientists.

          *That* is where the value in discourse with people we believe to be totally wrong, is. Who ever thinks hard about what they know and how, when ensconced in their echochamber where their own knowledge and they of the world remains unchallenged?

          1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

            Science is never right, it is just a little less wrong than yesterday.

            Religion is always right, the same as it said it was yesterday.

        5. flokie

          Nope, A clearly isn't willing to listen to B. And you're only showing your own bias with this post.

          Of course 2+2=4 in the decimal system, using 0123456789.

          But maybe in B's reference system (still using decimal) the numbers are 01245G?789. And 2+2=5.

          The numbers themselves, and the decimal system are only arbitrary human conventions.

          In a ternary system using 012, 2+2 = 11.

          It's a bit like the fundamentalists arguing their reading of the Bible is the only correct belief system, and the only reference system you should view the world through.

          Having said that, I personally wouldn't entirely rule out humans and dinosaurs coexisting. Clearly, all scientific evidence makes this extremely unlikely in this universe. But considering there's still so much we don't know and/or understand, we can't rule out parallel universes.

          So yeah I might end up agreeing with the Creationists - should they agree with parallel universes.

      2. JP19

        "We all learn by discourse"

        Yes we do, but, discourse makes no distinction between truth and religious drivel.

    4. PleebSmash

      Ken Ham: "God is Great"

      Islamist: "Allāhu Akbar"

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        It's a trap!

    5. The Dude

      Putting heretics to the sword is out of fashion now. It is enjoying a resurgence in the middle east, but I expect that reason will prevail when the bombing stops.

  3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Got any more from this loon?

    "Mr Ham has asserted that scientists cannot claim to have proof of their theories if they weren’t there at the time to observe those theories in action."

    Let's apply that to Mr Ham. By his own logic, if Mr Ham wants to claim dinosaurs and humans co-existed two thousand years ago, he must have been there at the time. Likewise as he claims God created the universe, clearly Mr Ham was there to see it, before god create Adam.

    1. Hey Nonny Nonny Mouse

      Re: Got any more from this loon?

      Oh but his proof will be that someone wrote a book about it.

      And further proof will be found in that famous documentary 'The Land that TIme Forgot'

      1. Michael Habel Silver badge

        Re: Got any more from this loon?

        Oh but his proof will be that someone wrote a book about it.

        That famous book, with the ...Missing first Page? Perhaps?

        1. g e

          Re: Got any more from this loon?

          Darwin wrote 'A Book', too

          1. Tom 38 Silver badge

            Re: Got any more from this loon?

            Darwin wrote 'A Book', too

            But we don't revere his scripture, or think that it contains all the answers we will ever need.

            1. sabroni Silver badge

              Re: But we don't revere his scripture

              Really? So what's that wee fish with the word "Darwin" in it doing on the back of that car?

              1. Naughtyhorse

                Re: But we don't revere his scripture

                It's a gigantic 'fuck you' to the god botherers of course.

                the origin of species is no more the font of all wisdom than the jewish folk tale about the snake and the apple.

                Now the FSM, as adorns the back of my conveyance, is an altogether different matter :-)

              2. Dana W

                Re: But we don't revere his scripture

                The Darwin Fish is there on toe back of the car to annoy Christians in traffic, and if you live in a red state to get your car vandalized "For Jesus"

      2. DanDanDan

        Re: Got any more from this loon?

        > Oh but his proof will be that someone wrote a book about it.

        > And further proof will be found in that famous documentary 'The Land that TIme Forgot'

        I saw a documentary about this once, set in the Stone Age, it concerned humans living in a town called BedRock.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: a town called BedRock.

          All together now:

          There’s a town I know where the Hipsters go called Bedrock (Twitch! Twitch!)

          When you get an itch, you do the Twitch in Bedrock! (Twitch! Twitch!)

          (great, now I have to try and forget this)

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Got any more from this loon?

          "I saw a documentary about this once, set in the Stone Age, it concerned humans living in a town called BedRock."

          I preferred the one with Raquel Welch although that one may have been a spoof since they claimed it all took place 994,000 years before God created the world.

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: Got any more from this loon?

      Ah but you see, all powerful god who has the power to affect reality itself whispered it right into his mind. He has a cast iron, irrefutable cast. Don't doubt him or wonder why god can't think of a more direct and obvious way to lay out the facts for his existence - such as by writing them in 2000 foot gold lettering floating in the sky.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: Got any more from this loon?

        I hate to say it but there would even then be people who would find an alternate explanation or deny it exists, you know like climate change

  4. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Here in the States, we take our nutters like him and put them in Congress. Maybe someday, we'll realize that they should be in the National Zoo......

    1. Hey Nonny Nonny Mouse

      Congress isn't a zoo?

      Well that's one day of the family holiday to the states ruined. Thank you, next you'll be telling me Westboro Baptists aren't an anarcho cynical group commenting on the lunacy of post war religion in the age of science by means of interpretive dance

      1. Craig Chambers

        Anarcho-syndical? Though I've no doubt that they are indeed cynical.

  5. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    No blacks in that picture!

    It's WASPish suburban dinotopia!

    1. Alien8n Silver badge

      WASP?

      White Anglo Saxon Pterodactyls?

  6. nsld
    Coat

    Ham

    Something isn't kosher about this guy. ...

    1. Ralph B

      Re: Ham

      Dunno about kosher, but he certainly got stuck in my spamfilter.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ham

      He's making a pretty ham-fisted attempt to try and prove a point.

      1. kryptonaut

        Re: Ham

        I think he's telling porky-pies

    3. GitMeMyShootinIrons

      Re: Ham

      Silly sausage!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Re: Ham

      one of the sons of Noah (and not from Spriggin either!)

  7. Gray
    Trollface

    In good company

    Mr. Ham is actually pretty mainstream in his beliefs, when viewed in the context of the crowd of wild-eyed political opportunists clamoring for attention as Republican presidential candidates. Then there's the elected crowd in Congress, where he'd fit right in with the current chairman of the House Science Committee. And he'd be a good right-hand man for the current Governor of Florida, who (although he won't publicly admit it) has forbidden state officials from using the words "climate change" or "global warming." (Although after this weekend, his ideology might not be so welcome in Oklahoma or Texas.)

    1. james 68

      Re: In good company

      It'll still work for him, they will all just blame the current problems in Oklahoma and Texas on those dastardly gays getting the right to marry in the Republic of Ireland and how it has made God unhappy etc etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In good company

        Wouldn't they just counter, "Then why isn't God covering Ireland in toads or whatever? THEY'RE the sinners here, not the people of Oklahoma and so on..."?

        1. james 68

          Re: In good company

          "Wouldn't they just counter, "Then why isn't God covering Ireland in toads or whatever? THEY'RE the sinners here, not the people of Oklahoma and so on..."?"

          Nope, didn't you know that all the Irish actually live in America? That's why EVERY damn American proudly proclaims to be Irish whilst in the next breath proclaim that they're the most "patriotic" American like... ever.

          Hopefully this will actually reduce the amount of blissfully ignorant fools claiming to be Irish, if just for a little while.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: In good company

            "Nope, didn't you know that all the Irish actually live in America? That's why EVERY damn American proudly proclaims to be Irish whilst in the next breath proclaim that they're the most "patriotic" American like... ever."

            STILL doesn't work, as most of the Irish immigrants concentrate in the north, around the Great Lakes. Most immigrants in the south are Hispanic, not only historically strongly Catholic but also placing strong value in family. IOW, one can argue God's targeting the wrong people: the people most likely to be obeying Him.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Trollface

        Re: In good company

        right, so why does god punish his supporters and not the godless Irish?

    2. Peter Simpson 1
      Happy

      Re: In good company

      And he'd be a good right-hand man for the current Governor of Florida...

      Ham's an ex-science teacher from Queensland, which is often referred to as the "Florida of Australia".

      // EX-science teacher...I think I can see why

      1. Lyndon Hills 1

        Re: In good company

        And I thought Florida was known as the Queen's Land of America...

      2. captain veg

        ex-science teacher

        Does he teach ex-science? I never knew there was a need for that.

        -A.

  8. Tromos

    My theory

    "The Register looks forward to reading your theories about what those interpretations could possibly be."

    OK. Um. let me see... Got it. The ravings of a loon.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: My theory

      No, just good El Reg marketing. I wonder how many ad impressions the story got and how much that's been multiplied by the comments section? ;-)

  9. msknight Silver badge

    Derr.....

    I believe that the current teaching from his popeiness is that Adam and Eve was not a record of fact but a parable.How does Mr Ham square that away? Also, most of the bible was written hundreds of years after the event and those people certainly weren't there to witness anything. Also, it was circa 1500's when some bunch of people relied on holy influence when deciding on what to keep in and chuck out of said bible ... oh hell, I mean ... the whole things a pile of crap anyway. Why do we put up with unsubstantiated "accounts" of history at all, let alone let them have any influence at all on modern life? Anyone?

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: Derr.....

      There are very few Catholics in the young earthers. They're too busy arguing about transubstantiation.

      1. emmanuel goldstein

        Re: Derr.....

        "That would be an ecumenical matter"

        1. Ralph B

          Re: Derr.....

          "That would be an ecumenical matter"

          "Yes"

    2. g e

      Re: Derr.....

      Unsubstantiated?

      `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

      -- Douglas Adams

      (But the Babel fish was a dead giveaway...)

      1. Thomas Steven 1

        Re: Derr.....

        So Mr Ham only needs to produce a Babel fish and we can stop sneering at him.

    3. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

      Re: Derr.....

      Even substantiated history usually has problems, namely who was doing the recording. I usually shrug and think deep thoughts about whatever crackpot IT idea I'm anticipating (drooling) to do next whenever one of these yammerheads rambles on. I've got the routine down so well (nods, verbalizations...) they don't notice. It's either that or aa whole hell of a lot of dead bodies and permanently crippled examples. I don't have any grey between those extremes. Sorry.

      [Why, yes, I am more than ready to apply capital punishment to these idiots though, usually, Nature or the vagaries of Society take care of it without my intervention.]

      1. Vic
        Joke

        Re: Derr.....

        It's either that or aa

        I'm not sure you really wanted to tell us that...

        Vic.

    4. Indolent Wretch

      Re: Derr.....

      >> How does Mr Ham square that away?

      I believe he puts his fingers in his ears and screams that you are a whore.

    5. Naughtyhorse

      Re: Derr.....

      broadly agree,

      but _some_ of them 'thou shalt not's' have proved useful

    6. nijam

      Re: Derr.....

      > the whole things a pile of crap anyway

      Surely not. I have a definite recollection that it was written by Satan.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Derr.....

      "I believe that the current teaching from his popeiness is that Adam and Eve was not a record of fact but a parable."

      People who believe the Adam & Eve story seem to have convenient amnesia about their surviving son Cain later marrying someone from a different tribe. Unlike Lot's daughters who started a new tribe by incest with their father.

    8. Langalf

      Re: Derr.....

      It is not accurate to say the canon was established "circa 1500's". Historical evidence indicates the modern canon was accepted pretty much universally in the Western church in the 400's, and in the Eastern church by the 500's (they held out against the Revelation of John).

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: Derr.....

      mitochondrial eve, anyone?

  10. Blofeld's Cat
    Angel

    Hmm...

    Presumably if the original Ark had been larger Noah could have saved the dinosaurs as well. Sounds like a bit of not-very-intelligent design somewhere. Perhaps there had to be a compromise...

    Noah: "How's it going then?"

    Builder: "Well, [sharp intake of breath] we're still waiting for half the animals to be delivered and who knows where the rest of the sodding gopher wood has got to. Might have to cut it down to three decks and delete the billiard room if we're going to make the deadline. I don't know who did the design for you, but they should never have specified pitch on the inside - most of the small rodents are stuck to it. This sodding rain isn't helping either..."

    1. Measurer

      Re: Hmm...

      Builder: ...and what are you planning on flying off the flight deck to determine when the flood is receding. If it's one of those bloody expensive VSTOL doves then I'll have to add a ski jump....

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Hmm...

        but there's no room for a steam catapult...

        oops sorry rong thread

    2. Thoguht Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Hmm...

      But Noah did save the dinosaurs. Well, at least the branch of the theropods that we now call "birds".

      1. Red Bren

        Re: Hmm...

        "There’s a huge hole in the whole Flood drama, because anything that could float or swim got away scot-free, and it was the idea to wipe out everything, He didn’t say, “I will kill everything, except the floating ones and the swimming ones, who will get out due to a loophole." - Eddie Izzard, Glorious.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Trollface

          Re: Hmm...

          perhaps the flood was a reference to one of the mega extinction events that happened billions of years ago

          I once read a "joke" and I hope one of you can unearth it for me that started something like

          God spoke to a scribe, "Right you I am now going to dictate a book called Genesis because I feel Man should know where he came from; In the beginning I caused a tremendous explosion and in the first Nano seconds of the newly created time I...."

          Later the Scribe says to a colleague "I was there for days and it went on and on I don't think I got a tenth of what God said about the first second, and the rest, honestly what's a quark? and I forgot most of it - what will I do he's expecting publication"

          His colleague replies "No problem we use metaphor & the like, we can sell it as being an artistic interpretation, Start with In the beginning there was the Word (and so many too)..."

    3. Peter Johnstone

      Re: Hmm...

      Non stamp collector's take on Noah's flood:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo

      Always good for a giggle.

  11. chivo243 Silver badge
    Headmaster

    so...

    "Mr Ham has asserted that scientists cannot claim to have proof of their theories if they weren’t there at the time to observe those theories in action."

    So he basically is saying he is thousands of years old? He must have been there observing his theories? Right?

    Put this cracker in a spherical rubber room and tell him there is a dino bone in the corner...

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: so...

      "Mr Ham has asserted that scientists cannot claim to have proof of their theories if they weren’t there at the time to observe those theories in action."

      Also, all court verdicts are invalid.

    3. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: so...

      No, no... GOD told him, and GOD *was* there. So he's right. Yes? that's how it works?

      1. TeeCee Gold badge

        Re: so...

        Hmm.

        Most people who listen to what the disembodied voice in their head says go on to hack people apart with an axe or somesuch.

        Maybe he should be in a rubber room for everyone's safety.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Nightmare

    It's always entertaining to read about these creationists. Unfortunately it will be a nightmare if their views become part of kids education

    1. Anonymous Blowhard

      Re: The Nightmare

      "It's always entertaining to read about these creationists. Unfortunately it will be a nightmare if their views become part of kids education"

      Unfortunately it is already part of some kids' education, and they will go on to be the next generation of whackos; but how can we counter this kind of intense propaganda? Religious leaders are, in effect, telling their flock that they will have an eternity of suffering if they don't follow their rules or an eternity of bliss if they do; it's hard for the rationalists to say "we can't promise anything one way or the other, and all evidence says this life is all you get" and make it sound attractive.

      1. g e

        Re: The Nightmare

        How about 'Has your preacher ever told you the sun will rise tomorrow? No, because there's NO DOUBT about it'

        At least some of the more thoughtful ones might get it.

      2. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

        Re: The Nightmare

        I've been clinically dead several times, by my own hand, nothing seen on the "Other Side." I guess I was either doing it wrong or nothing is my future Hell. Still, better than that Hellfire and Brimstone meme I suppose :-).

      3. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

        Re: The Nightmare

        Quite so, even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.

        A few days ago, my seven year old daughter came home singing hymns and talking about "Jesus who was gods son and died for our sins". She does not go to a religious school, and the one she attends is most definitely "inner city" multi-cultural. I can't even begin to talk about how outright offensive this is, not only to me but surely to the other parents in the school.

        It's also taking some careful thinking and words to address the difficult conversations that this now raises with my daughter. (I've settled on "It's a story that some people choose to believe, but that doesn't mean its true").

        I have decided to stand as a school governor.

        Heaven help them if I get in, one might say.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.

          And rightly so. Religion is a massive part of human life and has been for thousands of years. To not educate children in religion because you're not religious is like not teaching them history because you're not from the past or not teaching them geography because they don't live on a mountain.

          The problem here is that R.E. is supposed to teach you ABOUT religion, not preach religion at you. I'd be interested to see exactly what was taught in that lesson, did your daughter just love the story and the songs or was the teacher trying to convince her that Christianity is the one true faith?

          Sounds like you'd add a bit of balance as a governor, but don't get carried away. Arguing from a position of knowledge is always better.

          1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

            Re: even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.

            Thank you for the timely reminder to retain balance; it's easy for me to get angry about this. The school is not teaching religion as history alas, and my evidence for that is the instruction about "daily prayers" they've also spouted. This is a pro-religion/Christian agenda.

            As for arguing from a position of knowledge, I should probably mention that I used to be a Methodist preacher....

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.

              "The school is not teaching religion as history alas, and my evidence for that is the instruction about "daily prayers" they've also spouted. "

              Although I've been an atheist since I was 14 - as an adult I still contributed to community fund-raising for our ancient CofE parish church. It's a nostalgia thing - the buildings and the music.

              Then at one community fund-raising event the new vicar misinterpreted my knowledge of things biblical as being a fellow-traveller. He tried to encourage me to join his congregation by proudly extolling how they were going to use the community funding to send evangelical missions into the local non-denominational Primary/Junior Schools. They've not received a mite from my pocket since.

              My neighbour's son puts me in a quandry. When he was at the non-denominational Junior School I happily bought his allocation of raffle tickets for the school's funds. Now he is at a Catholic Secondary School he comes with his collecting box for their religious causes. So far I have gritted my teeth - not wishing to make him fail to meet his allocated target. The next couple of years should see if he has the inclination to question the indoctrination.

    2. JP19

      Re: The Nightmare

      "creationists. Unfortunately it will be a nightmare if their views become part of kids education"

      Omnipotent being responsible for everything and we will see her when we die - no problem.

      Same being created the whole world a couple of thousand years ago - nightmare.

      If you believe in an omnipotent being you are an idiot - unless it is made of spaghetti in which case you are smart but telling fibs.

      1. Indolent Wretch

        Re: The Nightmare

        >> Omnipotent being responsible for everything and we will see her when we die - no problem.

        Telling children that an omnipotent being is responsible for all of the suffering, crime, death, injustice, torture and pain in the world and that when eventually they die too that same being will judge them with the one punishment being infinite pain for all eternity..... I have a problem with that as well.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          Re: The Nightmare

          Sadly even I know that God don't kill people, people kill people so don't ban God or is that the Gun?

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: The Nightmare

            "Sadly even I know that God don't kill people, people kill people so don't ban God or is that the Gun?"

            Joke aside, how do you counter the idea of the miscarriage, the stillborn, or someone just plain struck by a bolt out of the blue? In other words, if God (or His universe) doesn't kill people, what about all those people killed by sheer chance, with no hand of man involved?

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: The Nightmare

        "Omnipotent being responsible for everything and we will see her when we die - no problem.

        Same being created the whole world a couple of thousand years ago - nightmare."

        Not really. See, God, BEING omnipotent, can make ANYTHING, including making something LOOK like something else. As well as create trials and ordeals to test us and forge us into better people when our times comes. That's their reasoning, at least. Even babies taken before they have a chance to think for themselves are seen as test for the parent(s). It appears to be all-encompassing and able to explain nigh everything, so it's hard to get an argument in.

        1. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

          Re: The Nightmare

          @Charles 9 - Taken to the extreme, this omnipotent God has created everything, including my current thoughts, and memories of my past joy and pain, and so already knows the result of the trials inflicted on me. Backing off from that a bit, this omnipotent God created a parasitic worm that made many generations of children blind, presumably so that, once we developed modern medicine, some doctors would have the opportunity to create a cure, don't worry about all those suffering children of earlier generations. Whichever way you look at it, this God created a lot of suffering; couldn't this omnipotent God have thought up some better way? This God is an omnipotent sadist, and certainly not the kind of intelligence we should revere or worship.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: The Nightmare

            "Taken to the extreme, this omnipotent God has created everything, including my current thoughts, and memories of my past joy and pain, and so already knows the result of the trials inflicted on me.'

            Perhaps it's best to say that God isn't truly omnipotent: just close to it. Many interpretations put Man as God's big wildcard: the concept so out there even He can't predict it (as in God can't predict Man's will). That was why Eve and then Adam were able to be turned astray: because they had the capability to do so, and thus introduced to God's universe the idea of the wildcard. Seen in that light, all the ordeals God puts before man can be seen as a kind of trial by ordeal: fire-forging. What doesn't kill or break you makes you stronger, and so on.

    3. Allan George Dyer Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: The Nightmare

      "it will be a nightmare if their views become part of kids education"

      Yeah, it's bad enough with these human nutters, if goats start espousing creationism, we're all DOOMED!

  13. Stuart 16

    Bill Nye should hang his head in shame for giving this crackpot any measure of credibility. Never trust anyone with only one book..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Never trust anyone with only one book"

      And if you have time, find Billy Connolly on that subject ...

      1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
        Happy

        Or George Carlin (R.I.P.)

    2. emmanuel goldstein

      well said. when Dawkins was challenged to a debate by one of these cranks he declined, saying "it would look very good on your CV, not so good on mine."

      1. AJ MacLeod

        You're right, Dawkins' few on-record encounters with disbelievers have not gone well at all - for him. He's a clueless bumbler who consistently spouts provably downright rubbish mixed with a pile of unfalsifiable just so stories. Still, it keeps the faithful/less believing - mostly because they're incapable of actually reading the literature produced by scientists with an opposing view. Ridicule and dismissal is easier...

        1. Indolent Wretch

          >> mostly because they're incapable of actually reading the literature produced by scientists with an opposing view

          Name 6

  14. Six_Degrees

    I wanna see Mr. Ham power and stop a car with his feet.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      You mean, like a scooter? Like my kids play with?

      1. g e

        Science. Pah.

        I bet he has a mobile phone though, which only works cos of quantum and relativistic science...

        (plus a good dash of the traditional electromagnetic variety, too)

    2. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Ah, memories of my first car, a Ford Fiesta with a dodgy alternator. Never stopped it with my feet, but it often needed its initial power with my feet..

  15. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Boffin

    The best way...

    It's tempting to ridicule. OK, very tempting, but the best way is to examine his proof and test it with intellectual rigour.

    Science - the only "religion" that works. Even if you don't believe in it.

    1. Indolent Wretch

      Re: The best way...

      The people who believe his proof will always believe his proof. It doesn't matter how much intellectual rigor goes into it. If it agrees with the book it's true if it doesn't it isn't.

      The idea that people with even half a clue should piss their important time away by debunking this self serving garbage is a crime. Especially when that work will have no effect.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The best way...

        the old saying "you can't argue with an idiot" applies here

    2. AceRimmer

      Re: The best way...

      "Science - the only "religion" that works. Even if you don't believe in it."

      The Religion of Science - That perfect, infallible construct. Never wrong, never contradictory, never tainted by mankind's desires

      </sarcasm>

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        @AceRimmer

        There is a big secret in science that they do not want you to know: In science the test of truth is an experiment. The intelligent design nutters have tried to keep this fact out of the curriculum.

        Perfect & infallible, never wrong:

        Quantum mechanics and general relativity give excellent predictions at small scales and in strong gravitational fields respectively. The two theories are incompatible. There are several attempts at theories that work at small scales and in strong gravity at the same time. The bad news is that so far no-one has devised an experiment that would test (disprove some of) those theories that we could do with current technology and a practical budget. Scientists have known their theories were not perfect for many decades. Before quantum mechanics, no-one could explain the photo-electric effect or the ultra-violet catastrophe. Before general relativity, the orbit of Mercury was surprising.

        Although people have been reading the bible and praying to God for centuries, those methods of finding "truth" have utterly failed to predict the existence and location of Neptune, calculate an accurate orbit for Mercury, select materials for a solar panel, ... Religion has changed over the centuries. It does not matter whether you think the change was good or bad. On at least one side of the change, religion was wrong. Despite this, religion is supposed to be perfect, infallible and never wrong.

        Never contradictory:

        Journalists and documentary producers often present 'the opposing view'. Sometimes because controversy is dramatic and improves ratings/sales/page impressions and sometimes because they are required to by law. Scientists do an experiment to prove at least one opposing view wrong. Religious people read their holy book or pray to their God and come up with a few more opposing views.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AceRimmer

          "Quantum mechanics and general relativity give excellent predictions at small scales and in strong gravitational fields respectively. The two theories are incompatible."

          Actually, efforts have been made to render the two more compatible. One has been to make QM relativistic; that's why entanglement isn't seen to be faster than c anymore. Other potential solutions just happen to be unmeasureable by man due to the time scales involved.

        2. AceRimmer

          Re: @AceRimmer

          @Flocke Kroes

          You sound like a zealot

          Good science requires

          - Hypothesis

          - Method

          - Recording results

          - Interpretation of results

          - Peer review

          - Publication

          All the above are subject to the vagaries of the people carrying out their specific functions. Published science can and has been wrong. Wrong, not in the sense that the theory it was testing was wrong (e.g. is the world flat) but wrong in that methods were flawed, results were cherry picked, the wrong statistical inference techniques used, the peer review was forged or the resultant paper was perfectly sound but couldn't find a journal.

          Science when it works is great but it is as vulnerable to being fucked with as anything else we create.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't give the oxygen of publicity to fucking loons

    That is all

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't give the oxygen of publicity to fucking loons

      "fucking loons "

      This is to be discouraged, we don't want any more of them ...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Don't give the oxygen of oxygen to fucking loons

      FTFY

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In defense of the Americans

    They have a word that signals "all my cognitive abilities have been used up, I cannot consider another thought, sorry I'm done", the term is PERIOD (normally in upper case)

    examples are all over the internet, edge of thinking rant followed by the mental quit sign.

    "guns always ensure personal safety, PERIOD"

    "stated in the bible, PERIOD"

    You have to at least respect their honesty.

    1. Velv Silver badge

      Re: In defense of the Americans

      "You have to at least respect their honesty."

      You put . (PERIOD) on the end when you should have put three ... (ellipsis).

      Or perhaps a sarcastic smiley

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: In defense of the Americans

        No, it's ONE. If not an exclamation point. The thing is, many religions deal in absolutes and make themselves as the only way for the universe to make sense.

    2. James 1

      Re: In defense of the Americans

      Unfortunately i have found myself living in Oklahoma since 2012, i just have to keep reminding myself that this is an adolescent country with the offspring most of the other countries did not want.

      On the gun side of things, it makes for a very fun way of ensuring your company's data is irrevocably destroyed when cycling out hard drives. The fact that everyone carries here helps with other peoples politeness and "respect" of each other, this can be put down to the mutually assured destruction principle.

      On the random and insistent arguing on the opposite side and common knowledge, they seem to take this shining example currently from the oil companies whose response to the whole shale gas drilling appears to be causing earthquakes located generally around where they have drilled is "God is angry at the heathens, it has nothing to do with us drilling and fracking near the epicentres, honest!"

  18. Don Coglioni
    Pirate

    Pastafarians Unite!

    As a relatively relaxed observant of His Noodliness's view of the world, I cannot but drive all me harties to rampage said Museums with barrels of ale and scantily clad wenches. YARR!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pastafarians Unite!

      I'm Catholic myself, but I must say your religion sounds like fun.

    2. Chorotega
      Thumb Up

      Re: Pastafarians Unite!

      As an Ordained Minister I say Ramen to that!

  19. Anonymous C0ward

    If they've got bone marrow

    Have they got all the DNA necessary to clone one?

    1. g e

      Re: If they've got bone marrow

      Ohhhhhh then it might EAT THEM!!!!

      Unless it were a herbivore I guess but it might think they were walking plants for just long enough, their IQ fits the idea...

  20. MJI Silver badge

    A village has

    lost its idiot.

    Time for him to go home and resume his official position

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gngng, why is it that only the wacky Christians get air time?

    OK, I know why it is, it makes more interesting news than the normal ones.

    But it's painful all the same.

    There are intelligent, thoughtful people trying to come to grips with this stuff, and doing their research too (eg: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/54447). Of course in an age of reality TV and 'everything which is not a fist-fight is boring', people actually thinking doesn't count as interesting. More's the pity

  22. DrXym Silver badge

    And in other news

    Ken Ham is an incurable dolt.

  23. Stuart Castle

    How many sources?

    "Ken Ham, an Australian young-Earth creationist, says he is on the verge of proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted only a couple of thousand years ago."

    This sounds like he has started the investigation by looking for evidence to prove his conclusion. This is not good science. For the science to be good, he would have to have started his investigation with (at least) the view he may be wrong, or (at most) a determination to look at the evidence to work out his conclusion based on that. Either way, he should have gone into it with an open mind.

    Of course, a good scientist is also ready to have his or her conclusions (however they reached them) questioned and even proved wrong. This is something a lot of religious people are not ready for.

    Be interesting to see what (if anything) happens when(if) the paper is published.

    1. Jimmy2Cows

      Re: How many sources?

      Yeah but he's not a scientist, so he won't follow scientific method.

      As a creationist he will do exactly what you say it sounds like he's doing - looking for evidence that supports his idea. Anything that doesn't support it will be ignored. There will be no possibility of him being wrong because he will only find evidence that supports his view.

      He's already proven this in saying existing scientifically established views cannot be correct because the authors of those views were not present at the time applicable to their theories.

      Therefore, there's no point in peer review of his "paper", as any contradictions raised will be discarded.

      Creationism and science are polar opposites. Amazing how these nutjobs have the stones to call themselves scientists.

      1. AJ MacLeod

        Re: How many sources?

        "Creationism and science are polar opposites. Amazing how these nutjobs have the stones to call themselves scientists."

        Yeah, those morons Newton, Faraday, Linnaeus, Pasteur, Kelvin (etc, etc - the list is a long one)... nutjobs. How dare they call themselves scientists!

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re: How many sources?

          yeah, fukin wankers

    2. AJ MacLeod

      Re: How many sources?

      Of course, a good scientist is ready to have his or her conclusions questioned; virtually without exception this isn't true when dealing with evolutionists. When the staggering discoveries relating to soft tissue and much more in bones supposedly millions of years old were first made, naturally the first reaction was to deny it; second reaction, in the face of now overwhelming mountains of evidence, was to claim impossibly miraculous preservation.

      Miraculous preservation, no matter what story you attach to it, is not science - and despite the dismissive link in the article nobody, anywhere, has proven or even plausibly described a method capable of preserving things like DNA for 5 million years, never mind 50 million.

      Even worse, many or most of the bones in question have not been maintained in anything remotely like the known best case conditions - just the opposite.

      The most logical and scientific conclusion is that the bones just aren't as old as they're claimed to be; the very best "evidence" for their age is completely subjective radiometric dating, which is known to be completely unreliable and calibrated on circular assumptions. So who's willing to question their conclusions? Not most "good" (evolutionist) scientists, that's for sure.

      1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: How many sources?

        > The most logical ...

        It is funny how "logical" is invariably followed by massive brain turdery when used by anyone who has no clue at all about science.

      2. Grikath Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: How many sources? @MacLeod

        You do realise that only the structure of the soft tissue is preserved in the fossils, right? It's not as if there's still squishy bits inside we can sample and do Stuff with. It's just as much "stone" as the solid bits that got preserved.

        There's actually two well-understood processes that do preserve and "harden" soft tissues: tanning and saponification. Both being responsible for the remarkable preservation of human and animal remains on display in several musea. Once preserved this way, soft tissue should be tough enough to withstand the rigours of permineralisation to complete the fossilisation process. No Magic needed there, just sequential steps of preservation of [organic remains] using processes observable in nature to give you a fossil with the Soft Bits more or less intact.

        As far as the radiometric method of dating is concerned: you can argue endlessly about the actual timescale involved, but the technique is eminently suited to establish the order in which Things Happened. And that order alone ( not even considering all the other other evidence in determining the exact sequence of (dis)appearance) is pretty much damning for the notion that dinosaurs and any variety of Man ever co-existed, whether you make the timescale 6000 years, or 15 billion years.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How many sources? @Grikath

          Think again - it's not "just" the "structure" or permineralised imprint of the soft tissue preserved, and that's the significance of these discoveries - it IS soft, still elastic tissue along with collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, tubulin... oh yes and remnants of DNA. Did I mention carbon-14? This stuff shouldn't be around after a million or so years even in ideal storage conditions - far less orders of magnitude more in hostile conditions.

          1. Swarthy Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: How many sources? @Grikath

            @AC - Wait, What?! Are you seriously citing Carbon-14 as evidence against radionuclide dating, AKA Carbon dating?

            You are making my brain hurt.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: How many sources? @Grikath

              He's trying to turn radiological dating against itself. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means in that time, there will be half as much of the stuff as there was at the start. Also, radioactive decay is mostly atomic (as in mostly independent of any exterior factors) because it's internal to the physics of the isotope. So, if we assume the bones are about 5.7 million years old (1,000 times the half-life), there should only be traces amounts of the C-14 (2^-1000, last I checked considered infinitesimal) there was when the thing died (C-14 builds in living beings as they live, this obviously stops upon death).

              Just to note, some creationists believe radioactive decay is non-atomic and can be significantly altered by environmental factors creating a false aging picture.

              1. Six_Degrees

                Re: How many sources? @Grikath

                Hilariously, Ham is one of those who has argued strenuously against carbon dating in many of his past brain eruptions. Whatever fact can be hammered into the nearest to hand theory seems to meet his needs just fine.

                Someone should really do a video collage of his bizarre, contradictory claims.

          2. Grikath Silver badge

            Re: How many sources? @Grikath @yet another AC

            a quick google tells you the story from the horses' mouth:

            "The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

            Iron lady

            Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

            After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

            "The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

            Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

            Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years."

            See? Nothing miraculous about it, the blood vessel experiment pretty much speaks for itself. The bone marrow is simply metal-tanned in situ. With the bone as a container ( note that the original bone was fossilised intact.) the marrow inside would have been pretty much sterile upon death so could actually be preserved in this way. Even a hairline crack would have ruined the process though, so you'd have a hell of a time finding another specimen.

            As for the specific substances you mention: she did not find hemoglobin but heme, the active compound in hemoglobin. There's a reason that stuff is safely packed up in globins in your body, y'know... Collagen doesn't surprise me at all, since that's terribly hardy stuff. In fact.. stone/iron age clothing finds that were stitched with spun tendon filaments still hold their stitches up to this day. tanned in a sealed container? who knows how long that stuff can last. Actin and tubulin.. oh you mean muscle components. They're part of the inner workings of every cell, and also really, really resistant to anything but proteases. Which degrade much faster than actin or tubulin, so any amount released upon cell death would have had no chance to eat it all, and with no bacterial action the stuff would stay there, even if the cells themselves are gone. Osteocalcin, same thing. An extremely hardy protein that needs to be specifically degraded in the body to be disposed of at all. DNA? Yes, in fragments, which is as it should be. DNA is extremely stable, and the only reason it's so damned hard to find is that bacteria love a free lunch, as the components take a lot of energy to make. DNA itself, especially repeat sequences, is extremely stable. So stable, in fact that it self-mutates to the most stable form possible if given half the chance. If left undisturbed it does indeed have a half-time measured in millennia. Wouldn't trust the code on it for one bit though.

            As far as C14 dating is concerned: As far as I can find out there have been no attemtps to use any C14 dating methods on the samples the good doctor acquired. I would love it if she does an attempt on the samples she did get, and do so as publicly and peer-reviewed as possible though. the result might surprise us, but I have 5-sigma confidence that they won't be able to find any C14 beyond background. It would at least cut off another avenue of waffling for the Apologeticists.

    3. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: How many sources?

      That's advice that could be given to a fairly large slice of scientists these days. Climatologists for example.

      [Prepares for the downvote storm].

      1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

        Re: How many sources?

        > [Prepares for the downvote storm].

        Non given although you'd deserve one.

        Just look at the *original papers*, how hard is it?

  24. naive

    It would actually explain the dragons

    It always amazed me that dragons are present in stories of all cultures on earth, although they seem in fact dinosaurs. Also dragons are described in stories made far before we realized dinosaurs existed somewhere mid 1800's.

    Christianity denied the existence of dragons, and we forgot about it. But if the theory is true, it would explain the dragon, which were always present in our minds.

    1. Velv Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: It would actually explain the dragons

      Unicorns once roamed the Glens of Scotland hence its the national animal.

      They must have roamed the Glens, the proof is on the coat of arms, something that's been handed through the Scottish Royal line since the 12th century.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It would actually explain the dragons

        Isn't the prevailing theory about dragons based on the justified fear of reptilian predators like crocodilians (which DO exist in a lot of places around the world)? I also wonder whether dragon myths (as we known them, large, reptilian, and airborne) really do exist in all cultures of the world. What about Native Americans of the plains where rivers (and therefore crocodilians) aren't as common? And so on?

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: It would actually explain the dragons

      Photographic proof for the existence of cyclopes. OK, its a dwarf elephant skull.

      Photographic proof for the existence of griffins. OK, it is a Protoceratops.

      There have been plenty of opportunities for ancient peoples to see a fossil and invent a near contemporary legend to explain it. Sometime the fossil needs to be corrected a bit first.

  25. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

    Why does everyone assume he (Ham) believes this stuff?

    I'm fairly sure that all this stuff is a massive windup - trolling if you prefer.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Why does everyone assume he (Ham) believes this stuff?

      I thought is was a publicity exercise to raise money for his ark.

      (While checking the ark project status I found a couple of Hamisms: "You can't stop something God is doing!" and "Please be aware that the associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control")

  26. wolfetone Silver badge

    Who actually cares?

    What benefit other than satisfying curiosity does this serve? It doesn't matter one iota to anyone whether dinosaurs and humans co-existed or whether God created the world or we're all descended from monkeys.

    If it led to a cure for cancer then I'd be more bothered about whatever this clown or Dawkins had to say.

    1. Thecowking

      Re: Who actually cares?

      I'm amazed you need to ask that question.

      Seriously, are you trolling?

    2. craigb

      Re: Who actually cares?

      It matters because people with this mentality meddle in everything.

      *Should* (hypothetically) he prove this, it would then be used as credentials in other arguments, such as (anti)Immunization, teaching creationism in mainstream education, criminalizing bunking Sunday Service (ok, I'm going a bit tinfoil hat - but you get the point)

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: Who actually cares?

        "It matters because people with this mentality meddle in everything.

        *Should* (hypothetically) he prove this, it would then be used as credentials in other arguments, such as (anti)Immunization, teaching creationism in mainstream education, criminalizing bunking Sunday Service (ok, I'm going a bit tinfoil hat - but you get the point)"

        I'm not sure of your examples. I went to a Catholic school, I was taught creationism, but I was taught in Science about evolution and the Big Bang. A funny thing happened there, I was given the choice like the rest of my peers. I, personally, decided to sit on the fence. I'm not old enough to have been around when Jesus was about, nor am I old enough to see the "missing link" that still hasn't been found to prove beyond doubt the theory of evolution. Neither party has solid evidence to stand up and say "I'm right, he/she is wrong".

        But all this causes is problems, arguments, people start being dicks to other people. Whether God or a chemical reaction created the Earth shouldn't even be a priority for people - but it continues to be. Wars have been started over this, people have been shunned, made to feel like idiots and driven to unspeakable acts because the mass collective say they are wrong. Columbus was ridiculed when he said the Earth wasn't flat by people who believed that it was, because their truth was more correct than his.

        What I'm getting at is the fact we live in a world where we will have a mobile phone for every person on the planet - when a lot of the people will never own a phone. We live in a time where there is a huge drought in California yet Business is allowed to continue to plunder the remaining reserves from the taps of the locals. We live in a world where we are told it's absolutely fine for people to make huge sums of money cheating the tax system but scorn and hate people who have to steal out of the bins of Tesco just to feed their family.

        Where or how does Creationism vs Evolution begin to help the above problems? It doesn't. It just gives people more of a reason to be dicks to each other.

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: Who actually cares?

          Creationalist points between two animals and shouts 'MISSING LINK!' Biologist points at the link and creationalist shouts 'TWO MISSING LINKS!!' Biologist points at the two links and creationalist shouts 'FOUR MISSING LINKS!!!!' This goes on until the biologist realises that the creationalist is never going to stop.

          Anyone would think that 'gaps in the fossil record' were because fossilisation is rare and there is a limited budget for fossil hunting. There is conclusive evidence that the creationalists are talking bollocks. Ask them what a 'kind' is. Creationalists 'explain' selective breeding by restrictinng evolution into 'kinds'. One 'kind' cannot evolve into another 'kind'. Years ago, a popular form of creationalist baiting was to ask for a list of kinds, then point at a common ancestor of two of the kinds that was not another kind in the list. Creationalists have not been able to produce a complete list of kinds. They have no theory compatible with selective breeding and the fossil record - except something like 'God deliberately created a bunch of fossils to wind us up'.

          Columbus: The world was a sphere centuries before Columbus. The ancients could watch a ship sail away and see the hull go over the horizon before the sails (they were scientists and could test truth with an experiment). The problem was that a few people were already trading with North America, and getting good deals because of their monopoly. A state sponsored trip would have made the existence of North America common knowledge. Other people would have started trading and introduced competitive pricing. This had to be prevented, and the time proven way to ignore the results of an experiment was to start a debate.

          You are right that a fight between creationalism and evolution does not help anyone. What does help is using experiments to test which theories are wrong. (Experiments do not prove something right, only that a theory makes useful predictions - or not). Experiments cured scurvy (multiple times because it was centuries before the value of the experimental method was understood). The real fight is not between creationalism and evolution. It is between experiment and 'I read it in a book' or 'in my heart I know it is true'.

  27. Matthew 17

    If he found a fossil that was in the wrong layer of rock / out of sequence

    as in the same layer as fossils of early man, then he'd have 'world-changing' evidence that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same period.

    How ever he doesn't, he's desperate to prove his story book is correct and will grasp at anything to do this rather than look at what the evidence shows and let that guide his world view. It's a bit like man-made global warming :P

  28. TheProf
    Angel

    Zebra crossing

    "Ken Ham routinely dismisses findings of palaeontologists, geologists, and other scientists who look at evidence to determine what Earth must have been like before recorded history," news.com.au explained."

    Creationists don't need no steenking evidence. They have FAITH. And that's where my understanding collapses. Why are they trying to PROVE the existence of The Big G?

    For a fuller explanation search for 'Douglas Adams/Babel Fish.'

  29. Adolph Clickbait
    FAIL

    Did he fly in with Pterodactyl airlines?

  30. g e

    "a couple of thousand years ago"

    I don't remember the Book of Brachiosaurus from the New Testament... did Jesus have any Dinosaur Disciples?

    Oh, what methodology is he using to arrive at ~2,000 years, too? Hope it's not some kind of 'Science'.

    RAWWWRRR!

    -- Velociraptor 13:8

  31. james 68

    Well there is a pretty decent description of a sauropod in Job.... jus sayin.

    1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Do you mean "4.Behemoth rests under the branches of the lotus tree and takes cover in reeds"...that one?

      Sauropod was probably about 70ft long and weighed maybe 8 tons or so. Those are some damned big trees and reeds then. Just sayin'.

      1. james 68

        Actually sauropod is the genus name covering that particular branch of dinosaur some of which were only 20 or so feet long, and that should read "..takes cover amongst the reeds in the marsh." which is a proposed habitat for such creatures. Read the rest of the passages and you'll see that they are indeed talking about a very large creature.

      2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Isn't it referring to something like a hippopotamus, or a rhino? Much more likely than a dino, at any rate.

        1. james 68

          nope, hippos, elephants, even giraffs and buffalo etc can all be rulled out by one thing - "... Its tail sways like a cedar." and cedars are pretty big trees.

          Not sayin that there were sauropods surviving 2000 or so years ago, but there's a good chance they unearthed a complete or mostly complete fossil that blew their minds. Much like the possibility that the griffin is based on a ceratopsid fossil (lion sized with a beak) and these particular fossils appear all the time out of the sand in the Gobi desert, hundreds of them and in the very location where griffins were supposed to live no less. The bible, once you remove the angry old man in the clouds and obvious allegory, actually contains quite a bit of historical fact, which though often influenced by the political thinking of the time is verified by archaeologists and accurate enought to plan further digs from. It's really not much of a stretch to think that they found a fossil and thought there must be more out there.

          Some interesting reading about the Gobi desert and "griffin" fossils. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/griffin-bones

          1. Six_Degrees

            It's a crocodile. Ever seen one? They're endemic to the region where this bilge was written, and they're freakishly huge there, too. The habitat description is a perfect match, too.

            1. james 68

              It aint a croc for 3 reasons, crocs dont eat vegitation, animals fear crocs so they dont hang around them (both are in the description) and lastly as you stated crocs are numerous in the region, they knew what a crocodile was and were familiar with them, this beast not so much.

              1. Six_Degrees

                It's a crocodile. You're just making shit up now.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                If people fear crocs for justifiable reasons (fall in the river and it has the edge on you), then it wouldn't be beyond reason to spin "fish tales" about them, making them larger than life so as to spark fear and teach people (especially the young-uns) to be careful around them.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like the contributions for his various ventures were starting to dry up.

  33. PassiveSmoking

    Ken Ham doesn't exist.

    I wasn't there to witness his birth and I've never personally seen him in action. I can only assume video footage of him is actually a sophisticated animatronic.

    In fact as I've never witnessed evidence of any of you personally, none of you exist either. The human population is in fact a couple of hundred people who I have witnessed personally. Nothing else could possibly exist.

    1. Peter Johnstone

      Re: Ken Ham doesn't exist.

      If only!

    2. skeptical i
      Mushroom

      Re: Ken Ham doesn't exist.

      "You are false data." (Dark Star)

  34. jake Silver badge

    Earth to Ken Ham ...

    Which version of biblical creation do you believe in?

    The one described beginning at Genesis 1:1, or the one beginning at Genesis 2:4?

    They are clearly different. Methinks your .fav Book has issues ...

  35. Noah Arque

    Hallelujah!

    Tony Abbott just found his Climate Change adviser.

  36. Terry 6 Silver badge

    ....evidence to prove his conclusion.

    "This sounds like he has started the investigation by looking for evidence to prove his conclusion."

    There's a lot of this about. Not just in the USA. Not just religions.

    A lot of public policy is decided by pressure groups who dig up some scanty evidence to justify a position that they already hold.

    Like "Reading=phonics"

    Or "We need to teach the 12x table".

    Or "We need schools independent of local authority control"

    Or that teaching "coding" will give us a nation of computer programmers.

    Or that freeing up "the market" will increase house building.

    And so on.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  37. Robert Ramsay

    Bwahahahaha!

    Remember, kids, being a fuckwit is independent of race, creed or colour!

    Although one of these three will give you a head start!

  38. leeCh
    FAIL

    Apparently Ham never read his Bible

    Kind of ironic that a man sporting the name of one of Moses' sons never appreciated that what was written in the New Testament (Hebrews chapter 4 for those playing at home) which is referring to the Old Testament (Psalm 95:11 and of course the Genesis account) and makes it pretty plain that the seventh day (the 'Rest day') was still ongoing several decades after Jesus' death. In other words, the creative 'days' are epochs not literal 24 hour periods.

    No wonder 'Creationists' get such a bad name, they don't even know their own reference work well enough to explain it properly.

    Sigh ...

  39. RainForestGuppy

    Extinction

    So what is his theory for why the Dinosaurs died out??

    To bring down a T-Rex with basic weapons would take some doing, so if we did hunt them to death, they must have been damn tasty!!.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Extinction

      We turned them all into brontosaurus burgers.

  40. Waspy

    same with conspiracy theorists

    I wasted about an hour of my time recently arguing with a moon hoax idiot...he seemed to ignore every bit of logic fired at him and cherry picked the things that supported his (preconceived) explanations. "I firmly believe no one went to the moon so I'm going to use everything I can find to prove it". Same effect is found in religion and extreme political ideas (such as communism). They would seemingly argue until heat death.

    Best to ignore them and hope the sum total of these people goes down over time (although it is taking a frustratingly long time...)

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: same with conspiracy theorists

      But what if they're plague-like, meaning even if YOU ignore them, many others won't until you find yourself surrounded with unbelievable believers?

    2. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: Best to ignore them

      No, best to look at the evidence they present and make your conclusions based on that.

      There was an excellent article about the moon landings in Fortean Times a couple of years ago. Someone who thought they were faked was given 5 or 6 pages to show photos and explain their reasoning. The next issue featured a load of letters explaining all the issues raised in the article and why they were invalid, destroying all of the fake landing arguments comprehensively. IMHO this is how it should be done. Everyone gives their evidence and arguments then you can decide for yourself.

      1. Waspy

        Re: Best to ignore them

        Fair enough, yes, at the risk of sounding as arrogant as the people I berate, I am willing to adjust my beliefs based on evidence...but the point was that this guy's evidence was less than flimsy and he focused in on one stupid little detail (missing the bigger picture). If he'd provided pretty convincing evidence that there was no moon landing then I would investigate further and possibly eventually concede but let's be honest here...that is never going to happen cause in 46 years no good evidence has been forthcoming (vs plenty of evidence for the event) and it's a pretty stupid claim in the first place.

        I actually think teaching the actual scientific method/how evidence works/critical thinking at school would vastly improve our society...your lovely story gives me hope!

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Re: same with conspiracy theorists

      Buzz had the right idea

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: same with conspiracy theorists

      "[...] he seemed to ignore every bit of logic fired at him and cherry picked the things that supported his (preconceived) explanations."

      Confirmation bias is a very common human trait. When I was a competent IT trouble-shooter - a lot of my time was spent unpicking other apparently intelligent people's "fixes" that had subsequently failed.

      It wasn't that leaving on time for their social life took priority - they genuinely seemed to have a blind spot for any facts that didn't fit their preconceived idea. Me - I fretted over every tiny detail that didn't fit any picture I constructed. Even then it was not the perfect solution unless it could be proven to be causality and not correlation.

      It wasn't that I instantly knew the path that was correct. However - I recognised when I had accidentally tripped over something significant and contradictory worth investigating until it was understood.

  41. Elmer Phud Silver badge

    Let's get something else sorted out first

    Before we weigh in to these who insist on the sky pilot version of reality, I think all the various parties who have other ideas ought to fight it out -- the rest of us get to argue with the winner.

    First up -- Mr Ham v's Mr Cruise.

    Once we've got the 'sky pilot/aliens with big tits' thing out of the way thisng will become a lot clearer.

    1. Herb LeBurger
      Alien

      Re: Let's get something else sorted out first

      Wait, which religion has aliens with big tits? I might want to rethink this atheist thing.

  42. Archaon
    Facepalm

    Nutcase...

    ...until proven otherwise.

  43. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    A *couple* of thousand years ago? Bring on I Caludius vs The Dinosuars.

  44. RyokuMas Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Look out...

    Sounds like the kind of guy who builds a website with the text stacked in a vertical column...

  45. sisk Silver badge
    Facepalm

    he is on the verge of proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted only a couple of thousand years ago

    Yes, absolutely. Because a historical record that talks about cats and dogs and freaking dodo birds and the various animals our ancestors hunted would totally leave out any and all references to dinosaurs.

    I may share their religion (in a very broad sense, apparently), but sometimes I have to wonder what these guys are smoking.

    1. AJ MacLeod

      You're right, it would be ridiculous for it not to mention some of the most impressive creatures ever to have roamed the earth... that's why there _are_ multiple examples of these creatures described in the Bible. Naturally enough they are not called dinosaurs in the Hebrew or Greek originals - we only invented that name recently, how could they be?

      1. Swarthy Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        ...that's why there _are_ multiple examples of these creatures described in the Bible
        As I don't feel like re-reading the bible (after the 3rd time or so, King James gets a little difficult to tolerate); can you point out some of those examples? And perhaps you have other sources that were from the same timeframe (Plato, Aristotle, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, etc) that also mention large lizard type creatures?

        1. sisk Silver badge

          can you point out some of those examples

          I actually can point out some of the examples he's talking about. There's the numerous mentions of dragons and/or serpents. I think it's safe to say those are all metaphorical. Unless, of course, you're ready to believe that dinosaurs breathed fire. There's Jonah's great fish, but that was more likely a whale. There's the Leviathan, which is only vaguely described but was definitely sea-bound and probably metaphorical.

          Then there's the Behemoth of Job. That one I can't explain. The language around it makes me think it's not meant to be a metaphor and I'm not real sure what it's supposed to be describing. Still, I have trouble accepting it as the only dinosaur described in all of recorded history if they ever walked beside us.

          And, frankly, I think only a fool would discard all the scientific evidence we have to say that man and dinosaur walked together based on an incomplete genealogy and one obscure passage. In fact the very idea that God would even try to explain the process of creating a universe in detail to a man who had no idea that subatomic particles existed is absurd. I think it's safe to say the whole account is dumbed down to an extreme degree.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Creationists

    What ROFLMAO was made for.

  47. Zebo-the-Fat

    Muppet

    This nutter thinks that every animal in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house!

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Muppet

      Of course not. The ground sloths flew in on the backs of pterodactyls.

  48. BobCu

    Ken Ham, science denier and uneducated moron, has made brainwashing children his career.

  49. JustWondering
    Meh

    Good grief!

    When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead; it is painful only for others. It is the same when you are stupid.

    1. skeptical i
      Devil

      Re: Good grief!

      I see stupid people. Some of them scare me. Walking around, like regular people. They don't know they're dumb.

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That seems harmless. It is not a rage/hate opinion.

    1. Wzrd1

      As it's religion, of extremist proportions *and* having personal experience in such things going "off the wire" in Afghanistan, Iraq and the US, let's suggest that such folks are equal to the Taliban in real actions, when pressured.

      Such as when the very first amendment is forced upon them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Muslim extremists send suicide bombers into crowded areas and behead infidels. Christian extremists picket funerals and very occasionally blow up empty buildings. Both are deplorable, but they're hardly comparable.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Facepalm

          They do kill abortionists though

  51. Wzrd1

    Well, the US is special. As in "short bus" special

    Currently and for quite a bit before, the right in the US has been racing for the bottom.

    They're nearing what they fear, "pitchforks and torches". That isn't a true fear, but an allegory of those who are possessing capabilities that approach their misjudgements in government.

    There are those of us who are centrist in nature, who have suggested that "fear".

    It's literally gotten to the point where small town politics are expressing threats to those who are equally capable, but stubborn on a point of fact.

    Personally, I'm a mixed bag of right, left, center and gravitating on center.

    I also personally own a full dozen firearms.

    All stored in their safes.

    I and my peers give the far right insane pause.

    For, we *were* or *are* military.

    We've long told "them" we'd sit on the side and kick anyone approaching us into the fray, then figure out the reality for ourselves.

    Yeah, it's getting *that* bad here.

    For some circles, there has been a suggestion of destroying the "football".

    Those have been suppressed.

    For, that *would* be treason.

  52. Bob Enyart

    Leading science journals publishing MANY dino soft tissue finds

    From the web's leading catalog listing the scientific journals, the kinds of biological material found, and the dinosaurs yielding up these soft tissue: The journals include Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proc of the Royal Soc, Bone, & J of Vert Paleontology. Biological material found as of May '15 in dino layer and deeper strata: flexible transparent blood vessels, blood cells, various proteins like tubulin, collagen, actin, and hemoglobin; osteocyte cells, DNA-related histone proteins, and strong evidence for DNA including multiple double-helix tests. Dinos and dino-layer creatures yielding their biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaur], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx.

  53. Prophet Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
    Facepalm

    Atheists call their imagination science.

    Atheists imagine the universe was created by the superhuman forces of nature. Creationists have good reason to believe those superhuman forces of nature were actually created by the Son of God and will be sustained by Him until they they wear out are replaced. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible of his ability to do the things which atheists imagine are magical, but which you'd naturally expect an intelligent God who created the laws of nature to be able to do, e.g. turn water into wine, raise himself from the dead after crucifixion, etc. etc. etc.

    1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: Atheists call their imagination science.

      Hello Mr. Troll.

      The Bible is not evidence of anything other than people can write stories.

      1. jake Silver badge

        @Bernard M. Orwell (was:Re: Atheists call their imagination science.)

        "The Bible is not evidence of anything other than people can write stories."

        For values of "write stories" that equals "copy & paste many diverse ancient documents into a so-called "single work of God"", in order to confuse the proles so as to make money and subject the masses". HTH

        1. AceRimmer

          Re: @Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.)

          "single work of God"

          It was never a single work or sold as one, the clue is in the name

          1. jake Silver badge

            @ AceRimmer (was:Re: @Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

            "It was never a single work or sold as one, the clue is in the name"

            "Bible" means, literally, "book". Look it up. It has always been sold as "The Book". Meaning the only book that matters. The description "Bible" dates from roughly the 14th century, but the Councils of Nicaea cherry-picked what it would contain in 325 CE, and then again in 787 CE.

            Anyone who thinks it wasn't built to make rich, powerful people richer and more powerful is deluded.

            1. AceRimmer

              Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

              Its "books"

              http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Bible?q=bible

              1. Vic

                Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                Its "books"

                It's "it's".

                Vic.

                1. AceRimmer
                  Facepalm

                  Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                  Dammit, that's me now permanently wrong

              2. Charles 9 Silver badge

                Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                It could be either, as it's a corruption. It could be a corruption of "biblion" (singular) or "biblia" (plural), unless you can show the specific etymology that can rule out "biblion".

                1. AceRimmer

                  Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                  Thge Oxford Dictionary defines Bible as a corruption of Biblia

                  It makes sense that it would be "books" as it is a collection of works broken down as book, chapter, verse

                  The new testament itself comprises mainly of 4 retellings of the same story by 4 different people

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                    "It makes sense that it would be "books" as it is a collection of works broken down as book, chapter, verse"

                    Honest question: How many times have you heard your .fav Shaman refer to it as "the books of the bible" (plural), as opposed to "the holy book" (singular).

                    "The new testament itself comprises mainly of 4 retellings of the same story by 4 different people"

                    All of which are completely different accounts. Did Matthew, Luke, or John correctly report the last words of Christ? They can't all be correct. Mark, perhaps sensibly, remained silent on the subject.

                    All in all, the entire concept of religion is preposterous.

                    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

                      Re: @ AceRimmer (was:@Bernard M. Orwell (was:Atheists call their imagination science.))

                      "Honest question: How many times have you heard your .fav Shaman refer to it as "the books of the bible" (plural), as opposed to "the holy book" (singular)."

                      That's nothing new. People normally refer to anthologies (which the Bible essentially is) in the singular even today. Only when multiple specific books are referenced to we switch to the plural (such as in "The Gospels").

  54. GBE

    What? He's not from the US?

    I'm just glad that (for once) a story like this is about somebody who isn't from the US.

    Having said that, I suppose karma is going to smack me upside my head with the revelation that this ignoramus was born and raised in Florida, or Texas, or Arkansas or somewhere like that....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Re: What? He's not from the US?

      don't worry, there are people like him everywhere not just the US of A - they do tend to get more publicity in the States though

  55. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Creation, Evolution & Evidence Based Thinking

    John F. Ashton Ph.D.

    A Chartered Chemist, Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, Fellow of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health Food Company in Australia. He is author/editor of In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? and The God Factor.

    Creation, Evolution & Evidence Based Thinking

    As a Christian physician and scientist (one who forms beliefs based upon objective evidence, which is testable and reproducible, while remaining open to modifying those beliefs as more evidence becomes available), I am struck by the level of non-evidence based thinking and believing rife within both religious and scientific communities.

    There are many well-meaning Christians who have innocently promoted the idea that faith is believing without evidence. And therefore, it is not surprising to find a certain resistance amongst Christians to evidence-based thinking. But, I have been dismayed and disappointed by the practice of “blind” non-thinking, non-evidenced based “faith” within the scientific community since the scientific community purports to base its beliefs upon testable evidence.

    I suspect the majority of scientists when asked which is more scientific (based on testable evidence), the theory of evolutionary origins or creation origins, would confidently state “evolution.” But how many of those same scientists would be willing to allow their belief to be subjected to testable evidence? If we are scientific, followers of testable evidence, we don’t fear examining our ideas in light of testable evidence, so let’s test these two competing theories (Evolution and Creation origins).

    The big bang cannot directly be reproduced or tested and neither can God. Therefore, we are relegated to testing the premises both theories rest upon. As we pursue our answers I want to expose two points:

    1) what we find when we test the premises these two theories are built upon,

    2) which group, evolutionists or creationists, is willing to be scientific and follow the testable, reproducible evidence in the formation of their beliefs?

    And which group will deny the evidence in order to hold to preconceived beliefs?

    Let’s examine the premises each theory is built upon and find out:

    Evolution - Something came from nothing (Big Bang)

    Creation - Something came from something (Creation)

    Evolution - Life came from non-living matter

    Creation - Life came from living matter

    Evolution - Complexity comes from chaos randomly with no intelligent input

    Creation - Complexity comes from chaos with intelligent input

    Evolution - Random mutation of genetic code adds vitality and genetic fitness causing a species to develop over time

    Creation - Random mutation damages the genetic code reducing fitness and degrading a species over time

    Evolution - Selection can select out the damaging mutations leaving the next generation more fit than the previous

    Creation - Selection occurs, but it is insufficient to select out all the damaging mutation, so despite selection, the next generation is less fit than previous generations

    Can any scientist demonstrate something coming from nothing? I can show you a world filled with evidence of new things coming from something that already exists.

    Can any scientist demonstrate life coming from non-living matter? I can show you a world teeming with life coming from living matter.

    Can any scientist demonstrate complexity coming from chaos by random forces without any intelligent input? I can demonstrate a world filled with complex machines, computers, and technology, all of which is a result of intelligent design and input.

    Can any scientist demonstrate random genetic mutation that has added genetic fitness? I can show you millions of genetic mutations that destroy fitness.

    Can any scientist demonstrate selection that removes enough genetic damage to cause a species to become more genetically fit than the preceding generations? I can show you that despite selection the accumulation of genetic damage increases with each subsequent generation thereby degrading the species.

    Further, which theory is in harmony with known laws of physics?

    The first law of thermodynamics, energy is conserved, rules out the first premise of evolution origins. Something cannot come from nothing if energy is conserved.

    The second law of thermodynamics, things tend toward disorder unless energy is put into a system, simply states that left to its own things decay over time. This law rules out the premise that complexity comes from chaos without intelligent input. It also rules out the idea that genetic mutation results in increased fitness.

    Both of these scientific laws of thermodynamics support the premises of creation origins but fail to support evolution origins.

    So, which theory is actually built upon testable, reproducible evidence, in harmony with known laws, and which theory is demonstrated, by the evidence, to be inconsistent with testable evidence and laws?

    Then which theory is more scientific?

    I find it fascinating that Creationism is actually founded upon scientific premises and beliefs, and supported by testable laws, whereas evolutionism origins is founded upon “blind faith,” premises that are disproved by objective testable science. Yet, scientists refuse to follow the evidence and instead persist in proclaiming evolutionary origins are actually scientific.

    Whether you are currently a creationist or evolutionist I challenge you to become an evidence-based thinker. There is nothing to fear in following the evidence, for all evidence, when rightly understood, will lead us to greater enlightenment – back to the source of all light and truth, our amazing Creator!

    1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: Creation, Evolution & Evidence Based Thinking

      "The big bang cannot directly be reproduced or tested..."

      Yes it can. Heard of the LHC?

      "Creation - Something came from something"

      Where did the original something come from? Turtles all the way down is it? This line leads to the conclusion that god is an atheist. After all, god clearly does not believe that god was created by anything else, such as a further superior being, but exists in and of itself as sentience. Therefore, god is an atheist. Your argument is just as ridiculous.

      "Can any scientist demonstrate something coming from nothing?"

      Virtual particles. Someone doesn't know aught of quantum physics either.

      "Can any scientist demonstrate complexity coming from chaos by random forces without any intelligent input?"

      How about weather cycles? the spots on a ladybird? Mandlebrot patterns. Chaos maths. Someone doesn't know much about pure mathematics, do they?

      "Creation - Random mutation damages the genetic code reducing fitness and degrading a species over time"

      Are you familiar with the concept of Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms? This idea that there is a "perfect original" for all things predates the bible by some two thousand years, but that aside, even accepting the premise of this argument, why would god allow the degrade of his perfect design? To teach us some sort of lesson in humility? Or, if the degrade is part of the design and god is infallible, then the perfection he envisages has not yet been reached, indicating your statement regarding genetic evolution is wrong even by the standards your argument sets.

      "Can any scientist demonstrate selection that removes enough genetic damage to cause a species to become more genetically fit than the preceding generations?"

      I'll leave this one to Charles. Please read the Origin of Species. I think he demonstrates it rather well. If you find the language hard, there are *thousands* of books on the subject by *hundreds* of scientists.

      "The second law of thermodynamics, things tend toward disorder unless energy is put into a system, simply states that left to its own things decay over time. "

      You need to do some basic reading about entropy. This is *not* a good definition at all. Even if you can't be bothered with that, perhaps a refutation like the Poincare recurrence theorem might do. There are plenty of others. If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can’t decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can’t decrease overall in a closed system. Please indicate where the bounds of gods closed system might lie.

      "Whether you are currently a creationist or evolutionist I challenge you to become an evidence-based thinker. "

      Done and done a myriad times, old chap. I think you could do with some schooling in the arguments you have championed here. Not a bad shot, but not up to scratch.

      Yours,

      BM Orwell, Atheist, Scientist, Philosopher and Ex-Methodist minister.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Creation, Evolution & Evidence Based Thinking

        The HLC proved nothing about the big bang, everything the scientists observed is still theorized. So which one of the 7 major, and opposing, theories of the big bang did the LHC prove?

        Where did the original something come from? Your answer is still a question, not answered.

        Virtual particles, you proved that by scientific method as well? Or is it still theorized?

        Weather cycles? Random at best!

        Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms... really? Still theories, where is the reproducible science?

        The Origin of Species was never pier reviewed even till today. Most of what science know today has moved on from what Charles wrote. See even today, it's still called the "theory" of evolution.

        The Poincare recurrence theorem... still a theory which does not disprove a law right?

        So again we have a person ready to rumble off the standard set of responses, which all point to yet more theories, based on more theories etc. etc.

        So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence? As the author requested, start looking at the real evidence. Stop trying to disprove evidence with weak theories to suit your religion. Come on, what have you got to loose?

        1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

          Re: Creation, Evolution & Evidence Based Thinking

          Hello, AC.

          So, yes, theories, that's what science has. Not facts. A theory stands, by definition until and unless it is disproved. Each of those theories remains un-disproved. "Laws" are theories too, they can and are occasionally disproved and then science adjusts and continues to grow and learn.

          "Where did the original something come from? Your answer is still a question, not answered."

          A question that you didn't answer either. Your theorem states an answer that is disproven by a simple, logical question. This one. Tell me where God came from? Easy enough isn't it? And when you resort to "He is eternal" I shall ask "Why then cannot the universe be the same?". God relies on "something from nothing" just as much, if not more, than any "Big Bang" theory. Problem is we have *some* evidence of the big bang and none for the existence of god(s). That, I believe, puts science ahead in the race for truth.

          "Virtual particles, you proved that by scientific method as well? Or is it still theorized?"

          Yeah, here you go. I hope its not too difficult for you to grasp the science. I'd like you to compare its validity to the bible please: http://physics.about.com/od/physicsutoz/g/virtualparticles.htm

          "Weather cycles? Random at best!"

          Random? Where is your god in that then? I thought "random" couldn't happen and that was your disproof of evolution. So, random in weather, but not in genetics. Perhaps you ought to get your story straight and decide if your god is omnipotent or not.

          Also, here is some reading on chaos mathematics and the nature of fractals. Again, I hope its not too hard: http://miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html

          "Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms... really? Still theories, where is the reproducible science?"

          You missed my point here. Platonic Idealism was a scientific theory predating any interpretation of Christianity by centuries. It has been overturned and discarded by science. Show me an element of religion that has been discarded or supplanted by new thinking in the same time scale.

          "The Origin of Species was never pier reviewed..."

          Not as we do so today, no, that's true. Can you show me the peer review for the bible please?

          "standard set of responses, which all point to yet more theories, based on more theories etc. etc. [...] So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"

          Someone doesn't understand the concept of scientific theory, or the scientific method do they? But, even pushing that fundamental lack of knowledge aside, I am forced to ask which bit of your creationist cobblers is factual beyond dispute, and thus superior?

          "So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"

          Science has lots. Where is religions?

          "Stop trying to disprove evidence with weak theories to suit your religion"

          I do not practice a religion.

          I have nothing to lose, you on the other hand stand to lose your faith and childlike assumptions about the universe. You stand to lose the comforting thumb you have stuck in your mouth.

          Next troll please, this one is done.

  56. jake Silver badge

    @"AC 3hrs" (whatever that means, ElReg)

    You are thoroughly deluded.

    I'll leave it to someone with more time on their hands to explain why.

    Although your comment "I find it fascinating that Creationism is actually founded upon scientific premises and beliefs, and supported by testable laws, whereas evolutionism origins is founded upon “blind faith,” premises that are disproved by objective testable science." honestly made me laugh out loud! Rare, that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @"AC 3hrs" (whatever that means, ElReg)

      Take your time, stop laughing. We would all like to see the your real "scientific" evidence opposing the above...

      Typically your answer starts with something like "You are thoroughly deluded". You have just insulted a real scientist (with verifyable credentials) because his worldview is opposing yours. Now take the time to answer the real scientist with real evidence. As he stated, he is open to real evidence.

      You did take time to read the whole post and to reply with an insult, didn't you?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @"AC 3hrs" (whatever that means, ElReg)

        if you are totally certain about God, then you have no Faith - if you have no Faith you may well be dammned

    2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: @"AC 3hrs" (whatever that means, ElReg)

      Consider it done, Jake.

      1. Swarthy Silver badge

        Re: @"AC 3hrs" (whatever that means, ElReg)

        Evidence-based, repeatable experiments in favor of evolution (Wikipedia, so that small words are more favored)

        Many more articles on the experiment.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019