Reddit reviews A new look at the dinosaurs

> Ken Hamm lied to you.

Just to totally derail, I have a beef with Ken Hamm because he very deliberately lies. Take this article for example. It was last run on the AIG site in 2015, but Hamm authored it in 1999. When he talks about scientific theories on the extinction of dinosaurs, he writes:

> When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction.

He then proceeds to quote Alan Charig's "A New Look at Dinosaurs" to support his assertion that scientists are just spitballing on the cause of the extinction of dinosaurs. Which I found weird, because I've only ever heard the impact theory.

I knew when I first read this article (2015, when I saw it reposted on Facebook by someone who follows Kirk Cameron) that the discovery of the K-T boundary was key to the impact theory's wide acceptance. Wikipedia told me that the boundary was identified in 1980. That seems like a long time ago when the "recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs" cited by Hamm didn't seem to be aware of it. Oh, it was published in 1979.

Ken Hamm wrote an article with the intent of making science look as ignorant as possible. To do that, he had to reach back twenty years to cite a book written before a major discovery occurred, knowing full well that it wasn't current information. And his organization republished that article without correction or comment 16 years later, even though other articles on their site directly contradict it.

Why do I care so much? Because I used to be a young earth creationist. I bought into the nonsense pushed by the Institute of Creationist Research back before Answers In Genesis was the juggernaut it is today. Most of us were just ignorant: we didn't know that we were repeating lies and omitting truths. People like Hamm aren't so innocent.