Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate

george. its an ad hoc explanation. the fact is that a lot of dino species was vegetarian and co-exist with other dino for a long time. i gave you a simple explanation why we dont see dino with humans for example. according to the evolution less then 1% of all species ever exist actually left a fossils. so we lucky that we even have some animals fossils at all.


But you will NEVER find whale bones (let alone elephant bones) representing 100s of forms and species
(about 88 whale species currently exist with multiple unique species found in the fossil record), mixed in
with Kronosaurs, Liopleurodon or Dakosaurus, etc. … all ferocious ocean-going dinosaurs.

George Brooks

again- its because the small size of the whale population.


Just because I typed Whales doesn’t mean that’s the only choice.

You will NEVER FIND the bones of ANY large mammals mixed in with the
bones of dinosaurs.

It isn’t possible. Large mammals emerged on the scene only after giant dinosaur
predators were no longer around.

George Brooks

1 Like

so? large animals in most cases have small population. so it isnt surprize that we dont find large mammals with dino. yes, dino as well are big animals, but there is more species of large dino compare to large mammal i think. so again- its mean nothing. what if we will find a large mammal with dino? in this case you will drop the evolution theory?


Finding ONE large mammal bone in the midst of dinosaur bones opens up the question of what kind
of sedimentary intrusion may have occurred. But it will all depend on the circumstances of such a find
… which we don’t have yet.

In the meantime, let’s discuss what we DO find.
If you count ALL the large mammals of the Earth … that’s not a small sample size. And we find
LOTS and LOTS of fossils of these large mammals.

But we NEVER find widespread intermingling of large mammal fossils in dinosaur fossil layers.

Young Earth Creation (YEC) is busted.


George Brooks

there is about 1000 genus of dinos. how many genus of large mammals exist? 100? the ratio is about1/10. so we whould not find such a mammal even according to the creation model.

“Finding ONE large mammal bone in the midst of dinosaur bones opens up the question of what kind
of sedimentary intrusion may have occurred.”-

so you agree that a fossil in the wrong place will not disprove the evolution theory?


Ha… How about we word it this way:

“Finding multiple examples of large mammal bones mixed into multiple dinosaur bone layers would seriously challenge the theory of Evolution.”

And I can pretty much guarantee you that it’s NEVER going to happen…


George Brooks


George, I mostly agree with you on this, but I’m trying to understand the difference between yours and Guys train of thought.

Guy — you argue that one misplaced fossil will destroy evolutionary theory. But to my understanding evolutionary theory wasn’t based on the fossil record … But on Darwin’s observations. The Principles of Geology and Strarigraphy started hundreds of years before Darwin came along.

George — you’re arguing that the over-arching picture of the fossil record is compelling evidence, and I agree. What do you suppose Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins (and Patrick) mean by finding a fossil that’s out of place? Do they mean “sorta” out of place… A peculiar fossil that has shifted a bit in the column or one or two layers different then they expect? Or are they implying a fossil that’s “extremely” out of place… A rabbit in the pre-Cambrian or large mammals found in the Mesozoic?

Guy — you presented two alternative explanations for the fossil record that’s different than the typical model: a gradual progression over millions of years, and the great deluge of Noah being the cause for the majority of the record.

The two alternative explanations (if I understood you correctly) is,

  1. demonstrating population levels

  2. demonstrating different habitats for different creatures.

I’m not totally convinced by either explanation, and each have some problems — the main problem is why we don’t find dinosaurs today? If they all got off the Ark after the year long flood it seems strangely convenient that they all later became extinct, but not creatures like giraffes, elephants, hippos etc. It’s even more convenient that that reality reflects what we see in the fossil record — which would only make sense if the original hypothesis is correct: a progressive model that took place over large chunks of time.

Your habitat and population explanations confuse me, because you yourself admit that these explanations are DIFFERENT than the Global Flood model that’s typically proposed — so if these explanations are correct, now you have to adjust your Global Flood model.


1 Like


I enjoyed your posting!

Your observation about no dinosaurs presently existing is AWFULLY compelling.

We have here a DOUBLE coincidence, yes? In fact, a TRIPLE coincidence!

Only 5000 years ago …

[1] land-going and ocean-going Dinosaurs decided to all die in a specific and special order…
[2] in sedimentary layers well separated from the elephants, giraffes, bison and whales and dolphins.,
[3] and that all those dinosaurs, of the land and the ocean, were neither allowed on the ark nor survived
the rising waters!!!

For dinosaurs, from land or sea, have survived the alleged days of the Flood!

Pretty good !


George Brooks

1 Like

This might just be a typo, but most of YEC organizations argue very much that dinosaurs were on the ark (land ones anyway). The Global Flood descriptions (and the Flood Geology Theory for the fossil record) demands it.

That being said other scenarios must be proposed for why we don’t see dinosaurs in today’s world: the dinosaurs were hunted down creating dragon legends worldwide, or alternatives like some dinosaur creatures might still be lurking in African jungles to this day, we just haven’t explored those areas extensively enough to know for sure.

Some dinosaur-evidence texts, they propose, lie in the book of Job, with the descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan. While I can’t speak for Leviathan I think many YEC organizations have grossly mischaracterized Behemoth in describing a dinosaur creature (specifically emphasizing the Brachiosaurus and Diplocadus).

In any case … The proposed scenarios comes as sounding like special pleading to defend a premise. While that in itself isn’t so bad, but many don’t admit that special pleading is involved.



hi tim. you said that: "But to my understanding evolutionary theory wasn’t based on the fossil record "

but the evolution scientists themselves claim that one fossil in the wrong place will disprove the evolution.

about the population argument- i not talk about the flood or the bible but in general terms. even so- according the the bible there was huge animals called “taninim gdolim”. they may was the dinos.

why we dont find dino today? actually we do, and a lot of them. they called “birds”. in evolution terms bird are dinos. so the question is why we dont see some kinds of dinos. the simple answer is they get extinction. a lot of species got extinct all the time.


How you spin and turn in this discussion. Now you are trying to divert the discussion by talking about the smallest of dinosaur survivals… the birds.

If you stick to the LARGE dinosaurs… which are still quite plentiful for us to find thousands and thousands of fossils…

… and the large mammals … which are also quite plentiful so that we can find plenty of their fossils…

And yet NEVER do we find a field of both large mammal bones and large dinosaur bones in the same sedimentary layer.

So you think the dinosaurs were on the ark? What … just ONE species? Twelve species? HUNDREDS of species?

And yet… amazingly enough … ANY of the large dinosaurs went extinct very soon after being released from the Ark … but mammoths lasted LONGER!.. But not once do we find mammoths or saber tooth tigers DEAD with DEAD dinosaurs.

Frankly… none of this makes any sense…


George Brooks

Yes, Guy, you are correct. In fact the reason I made this post was so I could understand what people mean when they say “out of place”. I’m having a hard time getting an answer here, but I think what people mean by “out of place” is a fossil find that’s extremely out of place — a rabbit in the Precambrian. Or a multitude of fossil finds that severely challenges the evolutionary thought process — large mammal bones mixed in with dinosaur bones.

In any case, Darwin accepted the general idea of the geologic column, but his observations were in day-to-day life — not looking at rocks. The meteor theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn’t immediately accepted by geologists — it challenged the preconceived notions of a slow and gradual picture in the fossil record.

You wrote, “According to the Bible there were giant animals called “taninem gedoblin”, they may be dinosaurs.”

The first time I was made aware of this argument was by a Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder. He argued that dinosaurs were mentioned in Genesis 1, “And God made the great whales (taninem gedoblin)” … He made a very compelling argument for why this could be referring to dinosaurs, and points out the confusion of this passage with translators — some translations say “dragons” “sea monsters” and even “crocodiles”.

While I won’t go into his argument, I will explain some other things about him. He was not a young earth creationist, he believed in an old universe, and to my understanding felt that the geologic column was reliable.

This dinosaur text says nothing about evolutionary theory, nor does it say that dinosaurs lived with humans. He even argued against the idea of a global flood that randomly mixed the fossil bones — to learn more look up his argument about Tubal-Cain whom the Bible calls “the artificer of iron and brass”…

You wrote, “Even today we find dinosaurs called “birds”. In evolutionary terms birds are dinosaurs.”

I think this is distracting from the original issue. By “dinosaurs” we are referring to those great reptiles found in the fossil record, some of which reach the height of 90 feet tall. Do you think ancient Hebrews would call “birds”, dinosaurs? Taninem Gedoblin?

No, they wouldn’t. In fact in Deuteronomy it mentions 21 different “bird kinds” one of which is a bat. A lot of modern people poke fun at Hebrews calling a bat a bird. But people forget that “mammal” is a modern classification, not an ancient ones. It’s clear from the text that “birds” are simply creatures that can fly.

It goes to show that Hebrews aren’t thinking in biological terms like we do, nor are they thinking in evolutionary terms or modern scientific terms.

You wrote, “the reason why we don’t see dinosaurs today is simply because they went extinct. Lots of creatures go extinct.”

Yes, many people would agree with you. Except that the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs is different. Because of the K-T boundary (the Iridium layer) most have come to the conclusion that dinosaurs went extinct via meteor strike. How did dinosaurs (those extremely large reptiles) go extinct according to your theory? First, were they or were they not on board the Ark? And if they left the Ark with all the other creatures how quickly do you suppose they went extinct and how did they become extinct?

Most people who study the fossil record come to the conclusion that MOST species that ever live become extinct. That 99.9% of species that lived is now extinct. If the Global Flood model is correct, concerning the model that says the deluge is responsible for the fossil record, then it means that all those great varieties of species (the extinct ones) and the animals living today, all co-existed in the old world. The 0.1% living together with the 99.9%.

Can you picture what that would look like … That exteme diversity of creatures living on the globe simultaneously.

All of whom were named by one man in one 24-hour period? I don’t know how far you go with how you interpret the Bible, so you may think differently about Adam naming all the animals. I’m not sure


1 Like

again george: do you agree with dawkins or not about “fossil in the wrong place”?

i gave you a simple way why we not see dino with large mammal: its a small group comparing to the dino one. so its isnt surprize.

A cow found in the stomach of a T-Rex.


Your “simple way” is a bit ridiculous. I reject your hypothesis.

And I reject Dawkins statement; it’s not how I would state the problem. A SINGLE exception
will always be difficult to discuss.

But a LARGE collection of large mammal bones mixed in with dinosaur bones … that
would be a huge problem. And we are never going to see that.

George Brooks

That would include flies, mosquitoes, bees, pterodactyls. And not include penguins, ostriches and other flightless birds.

Forget Birds… it’s not relevant to the discussion.

The Brontosaurus was not a bird.

george. its isnt a problem at all. first: where is the limit that you will agree that the evolution disprove? 10 fossils? 50? 100? here is 200 fossils in the wrong place:

the evolution disproved now?