It would appear that Ken Ham is still suffering from whiplash following his lesson on the scientific method from Bill Nye. His steady stream of twitter posts and blog articles attempting to paper over the cracks in his creationist claims which are backed up by naught but a book suggests that his inbox is filled with post debate posers that are causing him problems.
Ken's mistake was in not debating a noted atheist - whom his followers would be predisposed to distrust out of hand - but instead engage with Bill Nye the nice guy. Without the predisposition of distrust it would appear that some members of Ken's cash cow herd actually listened to what Bill Nye was saying and have now started asking their own questions.
And of course we all know that an enquiring mind is anathema to dogmatic devotion.
Ham's recent Blog entry 'Just One Piece of evidence" refers to the question asked during the debate concerning what it would take for Bill Nye or Ken Ham to change their minds.
Ham's response was that “No one is ever going to convince me that the Word of God isn’t true.” He reiterates that statement in his Blog post and defends it with, guess what, a bible statement. Ken believes the bible is true because the bible says it is true. That is the extent of Ken's belief.
Bill Nye's answer to the same question was
"We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another
Evidence that the universe is not expanding
That the stars appear to be far away but they are not
That rock layers can form in just 4000 years
That radioactive decay rates can change or have changed in the past"
In his Blog entry Ken Ham refers to an article by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay on the Richard Dawkins Foundation website titled “Ken Ham Couldn’t Pull a Precambrian Rabbit from His Hat.”
This of course refers to the 'fossil that swam from one layer to another' which Bill Nye cited as evidence that would change his mind.
It is "the One Piece of Evidence" in the title of Ken Ham's Blog article.
So how does Ken address this?
Does he provide any evidence for a fossil out of place in the geological column. No, of course not, he simply asserts that if he did provide the evidence, Bill Nye still would not change his mind.
Here in this Blog is Ken Ham's perfect opportunity to destroy Bill Nye in the post debate wash-up by providing evidence of just one fossil which has been discovered out of place. That is all he had to do. Just that. His evidence would be big news and Bill Nye would be forced to respond or look like a fool.
So I wonder why, having brought up the Precambrian rabbit himself in his Blog; Ken never mentions fossils in his article again.
Instead he tries to divert attention by repeating his attack on radiometric dating methods used in the debate and refers again to the dating of fossilized wood found in basalt in an Australian mine in 1993.
Ham cites this as one example of many he could give which show that dating methods are not reliable. It does make me wonder why hundreds of profit driven companies are employing thousands of scientists and spending millions of dollars every year testing countless samples with methods that they know are not reliable. There must be one almighty conspiracy going on.
To deal with Ken's 45,000 year old wood. Anyone who has heard of police investigations is aware that a modern crime scene is turned in to a no go area with forensics teams meticulous in their preservation of the site to prevent contamination and preserve the evidence in its original state. DNA evidence obtained from a sample some unkempt copper stuck in his pocket, took home and left on his sideboard for a year would likely be rejected by a modern educated jury.
And when you are dating samples of organic material by measuring Carbon 14, at a level of one part in many trillions, the provenance and treatment of the sample, showing how it was protected from contamination are paramount. And of course the details of the history of the sample in question, between its discovery and it being obtained for radiometric testing is notable by its absence from the paper which Andrew Snelling presented.
Anomalies do arise during the radiometric dating of objects. They are called anomalies for a reason. Put quite simply: if radiometric dating did not, overall, provide consistent, reliable, cross matched dates for samples. Scientists would not rely on them and nor would the multinational mining, drilling and exploration companies that rely on those scientists findings.
Ken Ham likes to talk about assumptions about the past. Unfortunately for him we do not need to make very many when it comes specifically to carbon dating. We have a well documented history which provides us for dates back through history for the Roman empire; the Greek empire and the Ancient Egyptians. Whilst it is true that as we go further back through the Egyptian king list there is some disagreement on dates (they vary by a few hundred years). Scientists can and have obtained organic samples for which the archaeological, written and carbon dates are in agreement.
Again, in plain English, this means that we can be very confident that radiocarbon dates for the past three thousand years are very accurate indeed. No-one disputes that fact.
On Ken Ham's own website John Woodmorappe admits that the 8,000 year long Bristlecone Pine Chronology (which has been cross matched using radiocarbon dating) is accurate for the past 3,000 years. Leaving him to conclude that for the biblical flood narrative to be true 5,000 of the BCP tree rings would have to have been generated in under 1,000 years after the flood.
I have dealt with dating techniques in several videos and will leave it there to return to Ken's Precambrian rabbit.
Why do you think Ken failed to address this issue?
Ken's Mantra is --- video
But like many of Ken's sound bites - this one lacks teeth
Because --- is not what you would expect to find.
If as Ken teaches children, there were dinosaurs on the Ark and by extension all of the animals we see today (or their representative 'kinds' as Ken would claim) were extant at the time of the flood. Then what we would expect to find is Billions of dead things all mixed together in a single geological layer.
Of course you cannot expect young kids, indoctrinated from birth that the bible is a factual book, to question a man presented to them by their parents as an authority figure to be trusted.
Perhaps WE should teach their parents a little history.
Back in 1796 when the USA consisted of around 16 states huddled against the Atlantic coast with a vast and mostly unexplored wilderness to the west of them.
And when Australia was still importing those adjudged as dishonest rather than exporting them, an unassuming man in England committed to paper one of the most profound statements in the history of palaeontology.
A note written in the Swan Inn, Dunkerton in Somerset reads:
"Fossils have been long studied as great curiosities, collected with great pains, treasured with great care and at a great expense, and shown and admired with as much pleasure as a child's rattle or a hobby-horse is shown and admired by himself and his playfellows, because it is pretty; and this has been done by thousands who have never paid the least regard to that wonderful order and regularity with which Nature has disposed of these singular productions, and assigned to each class its peculiar stratum."
Those few words, written by an unknown canal surveyor 220 years ago condemn Ken Ham for the liar and fraud that he is. And condemn the biblical flood narrative which he peddles for profit to the shelf marked fictions, fables and myths.
Ham and his creationist ilk should hang their heads in shame. Way back in our history there were staunch creationists who differed from Ken Ham in one important detail. They were honest.
Another paragraph penned by the aforementioned author reads:
"Surely these innumerable and finely organized fossils are not the sports of nature placed there to excite the attention of the idly curious, but they must, like the other works of the Great Creator, have their use."
and if you doubt his creationist beliefs:
"These numberless appearances of an animated origin in Strata of such immense
thickness and extent, must strike the admirers of nature with a degree of reverential
awe and grateful adoration of the Almighty Creator. "
"If these animals and vegetables had only to live and die, and mark respectively the sites of their existence in the mass of matter which now forms the earth, they have had their use, and will for ever remain indefaceable monuments of that wonderful creative power which formed them and all things."
These words provide clear evidence of the religious, creationist beliefs of the author. But he did not let what he had been taught to believe to override the results of his own observational science.
220 years ago the modest man history now remembers as William (Strata) Smith recognized and documented the fact that specific fossil types are to be found in specific rock strata.
In a later publication he went on to say:
"My original method of tracing the Strata by the organized Fossils imbedded therein, is thus reduced to a science not difficult to learn. Ever since the first written account of this discovery was circulated in 1799. it has been closely investigated by my scientific acquaintance in the vicinity of Bath; some of whom search the quarries of different Strata in that district with as much certainty of finding the characteristic Fossils of the respective rocks, as if they were on the shelves of their cabinets"
And of course we know that in the 220 years since William Strata Smith, Creationist and Scientist, first documented the fact that the fossils of the world are sorted neatly layer upon layer through the many individual layers of the rock strata, not once has anyone found a stratum of rock which has fossils that would not be expected to exist therein.
For 220 years observational science has told us that the idea of a catastrophic worldwide flood churning the dinosaurs, modern birds, mammals and reptiles together with every extinct air, sea and land creature and depositing them together into layers of sediment is simply wrong.
Ken Ham's faith may allow him to ignore the facts and allow lies to spin in to truths in his head.
But so long as he is spreading his hate filled apocalyptic propaganda to trusting uneducated and pre-indoctrinated children he will be exposed for all to see as the dishonest dissembling dogmatic doom merchant that he really is.
Thank you as always for watching.