I clicked on this link from the front page of the Worldnutdaily expecting some profoundly ridiculous claims; I was not disappointed. I also figured maybe they were going to just reprint some press release from the Discovery Institute, but instead they went for Answers in Genesis instead. And the arguments are precisely what one would expect from Ken Ham and his merry band of halfwits. I love the very first paragraph:
A new report by “Geology” magazine that a newspaper cited as linking humans to the die-off of Australia’s “prehistoric” animals really doesn’t advance knowledge, either in advocacy of or opposition to evolution, according to an expert in the field and president of a Christian apologetics ministry.
The “expert in the field” is Ken Ham himself; I don’t know what they think he is an expert in, but it certainly isn’t geology. The paper they’re referring to was a paleoclimatology study of the time when the Australian megafauna went extinct. The researchers were trying to determine whether that extinction was due to climate changes or to human activity such as hunting. They found that the climate during that extinction period was similar to earlier periods that those species had survived in, so they conclude that human activity had a role to play in that extinction.
This is a reasonable paper, testing two competing hypotheses based on the logical prediction that if the extinction was climate related then they should find evidence of massive climactic changes in the geological record from that time frame. The article doesn’t have much to do with evolution, though, so I’m not sure why Ham is so keen to knock it down except that he doesn’t think that any geological strata reflects any climate other than heavy rain and flooding, since they were all laid down by Noah’s famous flood, in his view.
“If they find animals and plants in the fossil record together, they assume they were living together,” he told WND. “That’s not necessarily so. They could have been transported and dumped together.”
Just because they were buried together, doesn’t mean they lived together, he noted. “You didn’t see them moving together,” he said.
Well yes, that’s certainly possible. Sometimes animals die in a flood and are transported and deposited some distance away as the flood waters recede. But is Ham so clueless about geology that he doesn’t think we can tell the difference between sediments deposited by such a flood and sediments deposited in other environments? Of course he is. And of course we can tell the difference. After all, we see floods happening today and we can see the kinds of sediments they leave behind and how they are distinct from non-flood sediments.
The very fact that flood sediments not of any distinct type of sediment because all sorts of terrestrial detritus is mixed together is one obvious indication that they were deposited during a flood. But that is precisely how we can distinguish between them and pick them out of a series of strata, because they are not consistent with the other distinct types of sediments (limestone, shale, sandstone, etc). When we see limestone, for example, we know that it cannot have been deposited in a flood or post-flood environment. Ham is simply peddling geological ignorance.