Another round of chiding those evil "evolutionists" who aren't nearly as smart and informed as Ken Ham:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... t-or-fable
Because it is convenient, Ham decides that the dragons of lore MUST be dinosaurs! Of course, if he had actually investigated what historians and scientists actually think, he would have learned:
1) Dragons are not hard to find even today.
Has Ham never heard of a Komodo dragon? Nowadays not many of them survivor in the wild long enough to get HUGE, yet children and even adults get carried off by them tragically often. They look like dragons and they ARE dragons. But you won't hear about them from Ken Sham.
How about crocodiles, both in India and Egypt, where some of the big ones can be 18" longer and more! NO doubt explorers returned to Europe and told of their exploits in fighting the fearsome DRAGONS of the Nile River. (Isn't it interesting that mythical dragons and crocodiles both have scales and tough hides?)
2) Many have suggested that the dragons of Chinese legends (and other peoples around the world) could have been the natural result of unearthing protoceratops fossils. The fossilized skeletons would have naturally led to "artists renderings". Doesn't a protoceratops skeleton look like it could have been part of a dragon? After all "dragon" is simply one of those terms used to describe a fearsome beast.
3) Which is more likely: Dragons were inspired by real life encounters between men and the dinsaurs of some 65 million years ago? Aren't #1 and #2 far more likely explanations?
Of course, Ken Ham always goes with the interpretation that fits his agenda. One can't make much money selling books which explain dragons based on the two more likely explanations above.
What a juvenile article by the flim-flam-man.