Ken Ham On Education?

Just thought this would be of interest to the board:

quote:

---

KEN HAM ON EDUCATION: The dinosaur tree--problems Down Under!

​

Question: We know what dinosaurs are, but what is a 'dinosaur tree'?

​

Answer: In 1994, in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia, some
bushwalkers came across a group of trees they didn't recognize.
Further
investigation absolutely stunned the scientific world. These trees
were
only previously known from fossils supposedly dated at the same age as
dinosaur fossils millions of years ago.

​

Scientists had believed that these trees became extinct at the same
time
as many dinosaurs.

​

When the discovery of these trees was made public, one scientist in
Australia stated that this would be the same as finding a live
dinosaur.
Thus they nicknamed this type of tree 'the dinosaur tree'.
They're actually called Wollemi pines, and are just another example of
the
many 'living fossils' that have been found around the world. A 'living
fossil' is a plant or animal that was thought to be extinct millions of
years ago--but is found living today.

​

They are an embarrassment to those who believe in evolution and trust
the
dating methods that give the millions of years for the supposed age of
fossils.

​

Discoveries like this don't surprise creationists at all!

---

More info: The Wollemi Pine | Answers in Genesis -------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Just thought this would be of interest to the board:

​

quote:

---

KEN HAM ON EDUCATION: The dinosaur tree--problems Down Under!

---

​

---

Oops! Sounds like another problem is about to be invented by Ken Ham.

quote:

---

...

​

They're actually called Wollemi pines, and are just another example of the many 'living fossils' that have been found around the world. A 'living fossil' is a plant or animal that was thought to be extinct millions of years ago--but is found living today.

​

They are an embarrassment to those who believe in evolution and trust
the dating methods that give the millions of years for the supposed age of fossils.

---

I don't quite see the logic here. First of all, I am not embarrassed at all. Second, why does finding organisms previously thought to be extinct mean that the earth is young?

quote:

---

Discoveries like this don't surprise creationists at all!

---

Actually, it doesn't surprise evolutionists either. Why is Ken Ham telling his flock that it does?

"I don't quite see the logic here. First of all, I am not embarrassed at all."
--Just a bit of extraneous jargon to impress his equally misunderstood readers would be my guess :\"Second, why does finding organisms previously thought to be extinct mean that the earth is young?"
--Well It doesn't have a direct correlation in favor of a younger age, though his logic, in knowing only the given information, leads him to believe that this is difficult to explain by geologic time scales and deposition -->"Actually, it doesn't surprise evolutionists either. Why is Ken Ham telling his flock that it does?"
--Ham either doesn't care to know, or is looking for that answer from the evo's I guess. His logic given this information:--This apparently leads him to question the possibility for all of the upper stratigraphy, being void of the remnant fossils to re-appear without a single geologic trace of this period of its extant Evolution. This is what he evidently deduced from his literature. Due to the reputation AiG carries, leaves me to doubt the claims veracity.------------------

Hi TC! Although not directly related to what Ham was babbling about, we're actually having a fairly comprehensive discussion specifically about this tree on this thread. I wonder if Peter Borger knows he's got an ally in Ken Ham?