Ken Ham Say Dinosaurs are in the Bible Because They Have to Be

dinosaurs noahs ark

Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, and a staunch defender of young earth creationism, believes that dinosaurs are in the Bible.  His proof? I’ll let Ham speak for himself:

To understand dinosaurs, we need to look at what the Bible teaches us about Earth’s history. We also need to recognize that the word dinosaur wasn’t invented until 1841, as a word for a particular group of land animals. According to Genesis, God created everything in six, literal, 24-hour days. Land animals were created on Day Six of Creation Week .

Since dinosaurs are land animals (some people think that certain flying and marine reptiles were dinosaurs, but these actually aren’t classified as dinosaurs), they must have been created on Day Six as well. Originally all dinosaurs, like everything else, were created vegetarian . They didn’t begin to eat meat until after Adam and Eve rebelled against God.

The reason we have a number of dinosaurs buried in sedimentary layers is because of the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. This catastrophic Flood would have ripped up miles of sediment, trapping and burying creatures that weren’t on the Ark as it was re-deposited. These creatures turned into fossils that we dig up today. After the Flood, dinosaurs died out for many of the same reason species die out today: changes in climate, habitat, lack of food, human predation, and so on.

Dinosaurs aren’t a mystery when you start with the history recorded in God’s Word. The Bible perfectly explains dinosaurs. They are just another example of the incredible variety of creatures that God created in the beginning…

Simply put, since God created everything, and the universe is only 6,019 years old, God not only created dinosaurs, they roamed the earth at the same time as Adam and Eve.

For Ham, it’s not about the science. In Ham’s world, the Bible is an inspired, inerrant, infallible book. When it speaks to matters of science, it is absolutely, infallibly correct. No matter what science tell us, no matter what archeology tells us, no matter what geology tells us, no matter what biology tells us, the BIBLE trumps all of them.

Let this be a reminder of why it is a waste of time to talk to, debate, or argue with young earth creationists. Their minds are shut off to anything but their narrow, literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Arguing science with them never works. Until they come to see that the foundation of their system of belief, the Bible, is not what they claim it is, there is no hope for them. Before Jerry Coyne can do his job, Bart Ehrman must do his. Until the Bible is shown to be errant and fallible, their interpretations will remain inerrant and infallible.

Comic by Dan Piraro

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

7 Comments

  1. j

    how in god’s name do they know it is exactly 6019 years old?????
    where is that written down?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Many young earth creationist believe Bishop James Ussher’s chronology. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

      The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as they believe is described in the first two chapters of the biblical book of Genesis.

      The full title of Ussher’s work is Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. (“Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabes”)

      Ussher’s work was his contribution to the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. This was a major concern of many Christian scholars over the centuries.

      The chronology is sometimes called the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644. This, however, is a misnomer, as the chronology is based on Ussher’s work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. He elsewhere dates the time to 6 pm. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

      Ussher’s proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher’s near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).[1] Ussher’s specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth’s potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). This view continued to be held as recently as AD 2000, six thousand years after 4004 BC.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

      Reply
      1. j

        are there people alive today that still believe this?
        seriously …. October 22 at 6 Pm???

        as a biologist …. this is head spinning.

        oh … did you know Kent hovind?

        Reply
        1. gimpi1

          As the wife of a geologist, I assure you, my head is spinning, too. I don’t have my husband’s specific education, but I’ve picked up enough by sheer osmosis to be able to see thru the nonsense that is Ken Ham. My husband is very even-tempered, generally, but Mr. Ham can make smoke come out of his ears.

          Reply
  2. Texas Born & Bred

    Just curious how Ken explains the following FACTS about fossils:

    1. Fossils are not bits of bone embedded in rocks. Silica has gently replaced the calcium of the original bone, a process involving water transfer of molecules and takes a VERY long time.
    2. Clam fossils are found on top of Everest and in core samples from 10,000 feet below ground (core samples are part of the oil drilling exploration process).

    On second thought, I’m not curious at all.

    Reply
  3. John Arthur

    Hi Bruce,

    The P myth of creation (Gen.1:1-2:4a) differs from the J myth of creation (Gen. 2:4b-25). These ‘origin’ stories represent Israel’s ancient mythical accounts. Yet Ken does not seem to want to recognize this. His whole empire would collapse if he did, but then he would be able to fully accept the findings of science.

    But Ken is not willing to accept what most non Fundamentalist biblical scholars recognize. He may honestly believe his Fundamentalist understanding of the bible is the correct one, but I remain deeply suspicious. He is still raking in the money, even if his ‘creation museum’ has dwindling clients with which to peddle his snake oil.

    Ken studied a bachelor of science with a major in environmental biology, so he knows what the findings of biologists and environmentalists are , yet he persists in his crusade against evolution and against climate change, in spite of the scientific evidence.

    I find it extremely difficult to think that Ken is really genuine in his beliefs. I wonder if the money wasn’t coming in whether he would continue to hold his Young Earth creationism?

    Shalom,

    John Arthur

    Reply
  4. limey

    I love the bit about when dinosaur was invented. Surely there would be an original language reference that was equivalent.

    It’s as though he can’t recognise that there are non-English versions of the Bible that pre-date his copy.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.