Yeah, I was wondering if Adam had fractured some obsidian rocks until he found the ideal razor for maintaining that excellent beard. Eve had made clear that she hated neck-beards. (Early rabbinical texts claim that Adam and Eve had their first argument when Adam discovered that Eve had used his favorite obsidian fragment to shave her legs.)
I have always wanted to ask Ken Ham about the differential hair lengths of Adam and Eve. After all, Young Earth Creationists have traditionally claimed that Adam was created early on the sixth day and then spent a few hours naming animals. That led to his awareness of being without a partner, and then his afternoon surgery and the creation of Eve. Nevertheless, Eve has much longer hair than Adam in every YEC depiction I’ve ever seen. (I’ve yet to see a pixie cut for Eve in any YEC illustration.) That is quite interesting considering that Eve was younger than Adam—at least younger by a few hours.
Now we all know that hair consists of dead cells, once living cells which are actually “programmed” to die soon after they are generated. So that is another reminder that death existed before the fall. (Yeah. I know, I know. I just had to say it.) Trees are supported by thick wooden structures which are dead but surrounded by living cambium. So I suppose YECs would explain Eve’s longer hair by means of the same “created with the appearance of age” omphalos argument. (They don’t seem to be aware that Philip Henry Gosse totally destroyed his career and credibility, even among other Christian scholars of his day, by promoting his omphalos hypothesis.)
I do understand why Ken Ham had to dye the snake red. He had to make sure that visitors to the exhibit would notice the serpent despite the far more interesting pet dinosaurs.
A lot of people don’t know that in addition to Tyrannosaurus Rex, Adam had a second tyrannosaurus named Reggie, the twin brother of Rex. Shortly after the fall and eviction from the garden, Rex ate Reggie. That’s why hardly anybody remembers Reggie.
As to vegetarian dinosaurs—as well as vegetarian lions, tigers, vampire bats, etc.—I’ve been waiting for years now for a Young Earth Creationist explanation of how carnivorous animals survived without meat and without the very different digestive systems found in cellulose-dependent herbivores. All I’ve gotten from Ken Ham is some anecdotal stories about two lions (at different zoos) who allegedly lived as vegetarians. (Of course, both lions were very proud of that fact and constantly annoyed the other lions by refusing to shut up about it. That may explain why neither lion survived for long on the vegetarian diet.) Ham also cites some species of vulture that can live on palm nuts if it needs to do so. I’ve always been impressed by the ways in which YEC authors will use a single anecdotal example to argue, “Therefore, it simply isn’t true that all carnivores couldn’t have been herbivores in the past.” I guess if one species of vulture lived on palm nuts for a while, all raptors did. (Proof-of-concept, I suppose.)
“Creation science” is an interesting field of study. All it takes is one uncited claim about something that allegedly happened in a zoo many decades ago—and that is all it takes to outweigh piles and piles of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and publications. No wonder “creation scientists” have so much free time to spend speaking at Young Earth Creationist conferences. Their “scientific research” can rely upon N=1 population studies. The data collection part of their research goes extremely quickly. Of course, the peer-review process before journal publication is also quite streamlined and efficient.