Dinosaurs did co-exist with Adam and Eve, you see. How do we know this? Just read the Bible!
All of this is cheerfully explained by creationist Ken Ham (who describes himeself as a former high school biology teacher) in a lecture entitled “Dinosaurs In the Bible.” Actually, you can catch a whole series of lectures by Ken at Answers in Genesis.
Here’s some more things Ken taught me. The earth was created in six 24-hour days. Why should we believe that? Because “If we don’t believe in six literal days we open the door to the collapse of Christian morality in our nation.” Furthermore, the numerous scientific methods of dating (such as carbon dating) are hopelessly inaccurate.
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don’t have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
Why must people suffer? Because we’re sinful, says Ken. God “loves us” when he inflicts us with horrible diseases like AIDS.
Ever notice those huge sharp teeth of T-rex? What did T-rex eat? No, not meat. Look to the Bible (Gen 1:29-30), not to the teeth, says Ken, and you’ll learn with certainty that T-rex was a plant eater (see “Dinosaurs in the Bible – Part I”).
Ken’s lectures contain plenty of bootstrapping. How do we know that there is a God? Read the Bible, Ken says over and over. Don’t listen to those scientists who say otherwise, especially those “anti-creationists” Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins.
One small bright spot: the slick graphics and music preceding each of these 24 lectures show that Ken acknowledges that the Earth is round (not flat). One more bright spot: I must admit that I have been carrying around this bias that people with British accents are a bit smarter than those without–but watching a few lectures with Ken (actually, he’s Australian) has almost completely cured me of that.
For those attempting to set creationists straight, this site is a great place to begin. All of their defective, disingenuous and dishonest arguments are presented here in cartoon form. But the battle is no longer about simply providing accurate information to combat inaccurate information. Doing that (simply providing accurate information) will get you nowhere. Just look at the credulous faces of the audience members watching Ken. They really like his smiling face, his encouragement, his sense of humor and his simple diagrams. Ken’s audience members are suspicious of scientists from the git-go. To effectively teach evolution, we need to get under this radar, not through it.
There’s an art to doing this well, but many scientists have not yet caught on–check out many of the sites explaining evolution accurately (some of them are listed on the DI homepage). Very few of them are as inviting and encouraging as Ken Hamm. Yes, many of them provide lots of information, but there’s still is a crying need for some good basic videos presenting the principles of evolution (and carbon dating and paleoontolgy, etc) in an inviting and extremely simplified way. Scientists need to spend much more time learning to present accurate information in tiny digestible bites suitable for 10 year olds with ADD. Maybe scientists don’t want to stoop to this level, but that is where the battle is being fought (and often lost) these days. In my own experience, it’s not that people are rejecting evolution; rather, it’s that they don’t understand it. They are rejecting the warped cartoon version of evolution being taught by those friendly creationists who also take the time to hand out salvation while they’re at it. It just so often seems like a mismatch.
In short, sites like Answers in Genesis present a threat and a challenge to those who wish to educate Americans about the beauty, power and elegance of evolution. Here’s my suggested battle cry: it’s no longer about simply providing accurate information.
In keeping with the suggestion of this blog to keep things simple and streamlined, I will say simply that Ken Hamm is an idiot. There. And he was wrong. The earth is not round, but is an oblate spheroid.
To say anything else will strip me of any shred of civility. When I encounter Intelligent design "theorists", or creationists, I usually mentally leave the room before I allow emotion to overule and become blatently offensive and insulting. To try and argue against irrational, personal belief is frustration, and if they can in fact eventually be convinced against their belief, it will be a short lived victory, as soon as some other new shiny pretty trinket is dangled over their crib.
The knottiest twist on all this, in my experience, was a devout Catholic who started out as a UFO believer, then found a way to see the alien visitors as "angels" coming to announce the Second Coming. The last "conversation" I had with this person on such subjects, he was touting the Vatican line that the Inquisition, really, only killed two or three people. Ever.
Dinosaurs didnt go extinct because there are still modern birds, crocidiles, turtles and all sort of reptiles still alive but maybe t-rex's went extinct but not all dinosaurs did.
this is interesting. i dont like the part where it says to not believe in it leaves open for a collapse of christain morality. rather i would just like to think it does not really matter. wheather the earth is six literal days or 6 billion and God created it with age or slowly, whether dinosaurs existed or not, does not matter. it is not important to our salvation at all. i personally believe in a literal six day creation. my opinion. i share it with those that want to hear, but do not condemn people who believe otherwise. no one is going to hell because they believe the earth is older then six literal days, there are many interpretations available for the hebrew words.
I felt that the above article was fun to read. It kept me quite entertained to picture a young, hipster college kid banging out a manifesto against those religious crazies. Then I got to the "About the Author". Grey beard, wife, 2 daughters nearing adolescence, professional accolades? What? At a certain age vitriolic idealism, even of an empirical worldview, should be long since finished coursing through one's system. It might be time to grow up Erich.
Joel: Never! I don't plan on growing up.
BTW. What is it that adults are supposed to be doing with their lives? Were you assuming that I was an adolescent because I give a shit about things like the meaning of life, hypocrisy, demagoguery and public corruption? That's a sad commentary on adulthood.
Erich,
I have a theory about that. The tasks necessary to "deal with the problems of life" are sometimes arduous and complex. Some people, perhaps many, maybe most, don't have the brainspace or skills necessary to accomplish them AND find time and inclination to Play. Consequently, they feel that adulthood, from their perspective, is necessarily the time when childish things must be set aside lest we fail in our Responsibility to manage life in an adult manner.
I think it drives these people crazy to see some of us multitasking on this, so that the bills are paid, the infrastructure is secured, the votes are cast and we STILL manage to have fun.
At least, that's my take.
(For instance, it used to drive certain people to the brink that Hugh Hefner drank upwards of a case of Coke a day and had no cavities. This was the epitome of unfair to them.)
Nietzsche often praised the mindset of children:
"But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred “Yes.” For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred 'Yes' is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world."
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus spoke Zarathustra, part I, Walter Kaufmann transl.
or consider this one:
“A person's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play.”
Jesus praised having a childlike mindset as well. That doesn't mean that we should listen to him. While I'll agree that one should keep a childlike wonder throughout life, that's not what I was criticizing. Rather than that you "give a shit", it's really a critique over how you don't. The "arduous task" of trying to defend empiricism as the highest noble aim is rooted in its origins: as a bulwark against christianity. Mission accomplished. But as we get older, we should focus less on trying to debunk other points of view and more on finding out the truth for ourselves. This is a truly arduous task and one that has been aparently glossed over by this crowd. Knowledge is everywhere, but where is wisdom to be found? Good luck with everything.
Joel: We'll have to agree to disagree. The authors have written hundreds of posts at this site that, in my opinion, focus on "finding out the truth for ourselves."
It's said that wise men learn more from fools than fools do from the wise. Feel free to continue sleeping in the warm comfort of feigned intelligence. It takes courage to look critically at our own beliefs in lieu of simply mocking another's. It seldom takes courage to blog on the internet about how stupid other people are. The world is full of e-Experts. But how many are brave enough to admit their ignorance? How many are courageous enough to apologize when they've made a mistake? Sadly, too few.
I'm starting to wonder if Joel believes that people had pet dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. I certainly don't get his vague and cryptic innuendo. Sounds like he wants me to apologize for something.
This site is a mosaic. This post is one topic of many; I don't spend all of my time criticizing others–I try not to "mock" others. Further, it is not socially insignificant that Kan Ham is successfully convincing many people to disparage the scientific matter. Convincing people of the importance of "empiricism" is not yet Mission Accomplished. Should Ham be off limits because he peddles absurd propositions?
I'll leave it at that.
Hmmm, lets see. Erich, runs a blog under his own name revealing personal information about his thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and topics he is studying, reading and learning about…
Hmmm, lets see. Joel posts anonymously, mocks Erich for what he calls mocking, which he opposes…and accuses Erich of not admitting his ignorance, about what he doesn't say. Maybe he thinks the site needs a "Erich doesn't know" page? He asks why Erich doesn't apologize but doesn't say for WHAT?
Joel: This is a discussion about DINOSAURS, would you like to address this topic in anyway, after all, we can all sling mud(see above, I take pleasure in mud slinging, I admit, and enjoy a good ad hominem[no, that's not a sexual orientation]), but the question that is being discussed is the garden of Eden and dinosaurs. So, do you believe dinosaurs hung out with Adam and Eve? Moses perhaps?
Joel,
It takes even less courage or brainpower to feign wisdom by implying its lack in others through cryptic pseudo-criticism and quasi-transcendent balderdash. Oscar Wilde you ain't. Either say what you mean or go read a book.
Джоэл,
Я не понимаю, что дерьмо вы спорить. Существует особое место в глубины ада для людей вроде вас. Вы ничего не знаете об этом предмете.