The Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate: Ken Ham And Bill Nye

“It’s wonderful to have an easy-to-read yet well-researched book that

demonstrates that a sound reading of Genesis chapter 1 demands a
literal, six-day creation week. If you’ve ever asked yourself whether
the first six creation days were real days, or whether it even matters,
this book by pastor and educator Doug Hamp is for you.”

– Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation

Museum

The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the science guy, raised the important question of what is evolution. I wrote about that in my book, The First Six Days.

What is Evolution?

 

Evolution in its most basic sense is any process of formation or growth; development, derived from the Latin meaning unrolling, according to Random House Dictionary (2006).  There are many things that evolve, so to speak, in our world.  All that we mean, however, is that there is a slow, gradual change occurring in different facets of life.  Let us consider a few examples.

 

The Changes in Language and Culture

 

We can speak of the slow progression of the English language as an example of evolution.  The English of today is clearly not the same as that of Shakespeare’s day.  They are both English, but many things have changed radically so that words and expressions of his day have a completely different meaning today.  The change in language is something that happens slowly and in small increments, but we can all agree that it happens.  Consider how it is that we use different expressions than our parents did and our kids use different words and expressions than we do.

 

Get all facts in the book.

Get all facts in the book.

Cultures are also going through a process of change or evolution as well.  The culture of America is without doubt different today than it was 50 years ago.  Things that were unacceptable back then are sometimes considered normal by today’s standards.  In both of these examples, however, we are using the word evolution as a description of the slow change that is taking place and as such, the concept is completely acceptable.  After all, these changes are observed linguistically and culturally by experts in the respective fields and simply by the general public.  In other words, we can easily document and conclusively prove that those changes have actually occurred because the starting point is only 50 years ago and not 15 billion or even 6000 years ago.

 

From Natural Selection to Molecules-to-Man Evolution to Abiogenesis

Using the word evolution to describe the slow, steady changes that we undoubtedly witness in languages and cultures is indeed a correct use of the term.  If that were the only way that it was used then there would be no problem whatsoever.  However, the reality is that evolution

Ken Ham vs Bill Nye the science guy

Molecules to Man Evolution

has been given a new role and meaning; it is used to describe the entire progression of the universe starting with the Big Bang until the present day.  The different phases of evolution include: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural.[1]  Biological evolution purports to explain how life started from non-life (properly called abiogenesis) and then how those single-celled organisms eventually turned into you and me.  Douglas Futuyma, a foremost expert in biological evolution notes,

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution…is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual…Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”  (Futuyma 1986)

The above definition is rather misleading, however.  Dr. Futuyma should define for us the three different concepts that he is dealing with under the broad category of biological evolution, which are: Natural Selection (adaptation to an environment), molecules-to-man evolution (change in kind, e.g. reptile to bird) and abiogenesis (a nonliving piece of rock to a living single-celled organism).  Neither the Bible nor literal six-day creationists are in any way against the concept of Natural Selection, which was actually first introduced by a creationist Edward Blythe.  Changes in species populations, by adapting to their environment, have in fact been witnessed to occur.

Charles Darwin correctly noted that the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands changed according to the climatic conditions.  He called this evolution.  From there he postulated his theory that these small changes, given enough time, could account for all of the living creatures on earth.  Darwin failed to note, however, that the finches were still finches.  They never turned into something else other than finches.  Darwin observed the species’ ability to adapt to its surrounding (which is easily ascribed to an amazing Creator) and from there made the leap of faith that with the magical element of time, one creature will turn into another.

According to Its Kind

 

The belief in molecules-to-man evolution – that single-celled organisms turned into more complex creatures, which turned into something else, all the way to you and me – is what stands in direct conflict with the Bible and specifically the six days of creation.  Genesis 1:24 specifically states that on the fifth day, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind [מין min]: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.”  This verse acts as an insurmountable obstacle to those who would try to bridge (macro)evolution and the Bible.  God’s words cannot be misconstrued here.  He plainly says that different living creatures will come forth according to their own kind and not from one common ancestor of all.  He then defines what He means by enumerating the creatures: “cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth”, rendering impossible the paradigm that everything came from a different creature smaller and simpler than itself.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains:

 

Some have argued that when God created “min” [class, kind, species], he thereby fixed the “species.” This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word “min” with the biologist’s descriptive term “species” cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists…God created the basic forms of life called “min” which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or sometimes order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist’s view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

Dogs Are Still Dogs

 

Animals reproducing fertile offspring according to their own kind, is what we see in nature.  We see hundreds of varieties of dogs, but dogs are still dogs.  This (largely human-caused) variation in dogs is often called evolution.  This is reflected in the Seed Magazine article “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” (Anthes 2006), which discusses not the molecules-to-man type of evolution of how a non-dog turned into a dog, but how through human intervention “the domestication of dogs by humans has given rise to the immense diversity of the canine species by allowing otherwise harmful genetic mutations to survive.”  (Anthes 2006)   This “evolution” that Anthes refers to is nothing more than variation within a kind.  Nevertheless, she is echoed by the Natural History Museum in London which says that the breeding of dogs shows evolution as well.  (Batten 1996)   Here again, we are given an example of Natural Selection (adaptation and variation, which are factual and observed) and are led to believe that it is equivalent to molecules-to-man evolution.

 

However, there is no “evolution” of the dog at all, other than variation due greatly to humans.  Interestingly, the study of genetics confirms that all dogs have come from a common ancestry. “Most breeds have developed during the past 500 years, […] Before humans began breeding dogs for certain traits or behaviors, dogs were more general in their appearance or morphology […]” (Dalke 2002).  The multiplicity of dogs is not a proof of evolution but of dog’s best friend manipulating him to better suit man.  “Breeds tell us more about human preferences than about dogs […] Dog breeds are the result of human preferences—selected traits taken from generation to generation.” (Dalke 2002).  “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” would be better titled “Man’s Breeding of Dogs”.

Views of Biblical Creation

 

For those holding to the belief that God was the agent of creation, there are four possible answers to the question of how He did it.  The first view is that God took six, literal days as understood by the plain reading of the Genesis text, which is the thesis of this book.  The other three views consider the evolutionary model to be an established fact and therefore seek to reconcile the revelation of Scripture regarding creation with evolution.  The three views are Theistic Evolution, the Gap Theory, and Progressive Creationism.

 

Theistic Evolution

 

Theistic Evolution is the most liberal of the views that ascribes to God a role in creation as being the agent that jump-started the Big Bang.  According to this theory, since then He has allowed evolution to take its course thereby having very little, if any, role in His creation and dealings with man.

 

The Gap Theory

 

Proponents of the Gap Theory see the days of Genesis 1 as being literal days but with a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (some also suggest a gap between 1:2 and 1:3).  The rationale for seeking a gap, nevertheless, is due to the belief that (geological) evolution is an established fact and that the Bible must be reconciled to it.  Hence, a time gap is envisioned between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (or 1:2-1:3), which allows for the billions of years supposedly necessary for geological evolution to take place.

 

Progressive Creationism

 

Progressive Creationism seeks to reconcile the belief of evolution with the Bible, not by way of a gap between verses 1:1 and 1:2, but rather by redefining six days of Genesis 1 to mean indefinite periods of time in which millions and perhaps billions of years transpired each day.  They see God as being involved in the entire process of creation wherein every day, God was creating via the evolutionary process.[2]  Van Bebber and Taylor point out:

 

According to the Progressive Creationist timeline, Adam was, in effect, created on top of a graveyard of decaying or fossilized animals. Almost anywhere he walked, the remains of millions of dead animals were somewhere below his feet — evidence of death and frequent misery on a massive scale (2006).

 

Thus, for the Progressive Creationist, both the Bible and the evolutionary model complement one another because the biblical creation account is better understood through the lens of evolutionary thinking.  Undoubtedly, most proponents of both the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism believe in the authority of the Bible.

 

How Much Time Does God Need?

 

Get all facts in the book.

Get all facts in the book.

Rather than ask why couldn’t God have taken billions of years to accomplish His work of creation, the better question is why didn’t God speak once and everything merely come into existence as suggested by Augustine (see chapter 7)?  God, the Supreme Being by which all things exist, could have snapped His divine fingers and everything would have come into being at once.  Thus, even from a literal, six-day-

creation standpoint, God took His time in a big way!  Why did He take so long to create everything?  God purposely slowed Himself down rather than just getting it over with.  The reason, found in Exodus 20:11 (and 31:12-17), is that God wanted to establish a pattern which for mankind to follow; God worked for six days and then rested and so should man.

Or



[1] I believe the Bible is a faithful and reliable historical document inspired by God.  There are numerous excellent books and websites on the subject, which demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible.  Visit  christiananswers.net/ for general questions and answersingenesis.com for answers to many Bible and science questions.

 

[2] “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons…Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha. [Messiah]” (Targum Jonathan, Genesis 3:15)

 

Did God Use Evolution When He Created the Universe?

Many Christians have succumbed to the belief that God used the process of evolution within the creation framework. They would suggest that the six days of creation in Genesis were not absolute literal days of 24-hours but some how allowed for the slow process of billions of years of evolution.  They accept the Bible as God’s divine book yet also accept the many facets of evolution as indisputable fact and are forced to squeeze the needed evolutionary time into the pages of the Bible.  Before looking at the evolution plus God theories, however, let us first consider what exactly Did God Use Evolution?evolution is.

What is Evolution?

Evolution in its most basic sense is any process of formation or growth; development, derived from the Latin meaning unrolling, according to Random House Dictionary (2006).  There are many things that evolve, so to speak, in our world.  All that we mean, however, is that there is a slow, gradual change occurring in different facets of life.  Let us consider a few examples.

The Changes in Language and Culture

We can speak of the slow progression of the English language as an example of evolution.  The English of today is clearly not the same as that of Shakespeare’s day.  They are both English, but many things have changed radically so that words and expressions of his day have a completely different meaning today.  The change in language is something that happens slowly and in small increments, but we can all agree that it happens.  Consider how it is that we use different expressions than our parents did and our kids use different words and expressions than we do.

Cultures are also going through a process of change or evolution as well.  The culture of America is without doubt different today than it was 50 years ago.  Things that were unacceptable back then are sometimes considered normal by today’s standards.  In both of these examples, however, we are using the word evolution as a description of the slow change that is taking place and as such, the concept is completely acceptable.  After all, these changes are observed linguistically and culturally by experts in the respective fields and simply by the general public.  In other words, we can easily document and conclusively prove that those changes have actually occurred because the starting point is only 50 years ago and not 15 billion or even 6000 years ago.

From Micro to Macro to Abiogenesis

Douglas Futuyma, expert in biological evolution

Using the word evolution to describe the slow, steady changes that we undoubtedly witness in languages and cultures is indeed a correct use of the term.  If that were the only way that it was used then there would be no problem whatsoever.  However, the reality is that evolution has been given a new role and meaning; it is used to describe the entire progression of the universe starting with the Big Bang until the present day.  The different phases of evolution include: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural.[1]  Biological evolution purports to explain how life started from non-life (properly called abiogenesis) and then how those single-celled organisms eventually turned into you and me.  Douglas Futuyma, a foremost expert in biological evolution notes,

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution…is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual…Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.  (Futuyma 1986)

The above definition is rather misleading, however.  Dr. Futuyma should define for us the three different concepts that he is dealing with under the broad category of biological evolution, which are: Natural Selection (adaptation to an environment, which is sometimes called microevolution), molecules-to-man evolution (change in kind, e.g. reptile to bird, which is sometimes called macroevolution) and abiogenesis (a nonliving piece of rock to a living single-celled organism).  Neither the Bible nor literal six-day creationists are in any way against the concept of Natural Selection, which was actually first introduced by a creationist Edward Blythe.  Changes in species populations, by adapting to their environment, have in fact been witnessed to occur.

Charles Darwin correctly noted that the beaks of the finches on theGalapagos Islandschanged according to the climatic conditions.  He called this evolution.  From there he postulated his theory that these small changes, given enough time, could account for all of the living creatures on earth. Darwinfailed to note, however, that the finches were still finches.  They never turned into something else other than finches. Darwinobserved the species’ ability to adapt to its surrounding (which is easily ascribed to an amazing Creator) and from there made the leap of faith that with the magical element of time, one creature will turn into another.

According to Its Kind

The belief in molecules-to-man evolution – that single-celled organisms turned into more complex creatures, which turned into something else, all the way to you and me – is what stands in direct conflict with the Bible and specifically the six days of creation.  Genesis 1:24 specifically states that on the fifth day, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind [מין min]: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.”  This verse acts as an insurmountable obstacle to those who would try to bridge (macro)evolution and the Bible.  God’s words cannot be misconstrued here.  He plainly says that different living creatures will come forth according to their own kind and not from one common ancestor of all.  He then defines what He means by enumerating the creatures: “cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth”, rendering impossible the paradigm that everything came from a different creature smaller and simpler than itself.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains:

Some have argued that when God created “min” [class, kind, species], he thereby fixed the “species.” This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word “min” with the biologist’s descriptive term “species” cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists…God created the basic forms of life called “min” which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or sometimes order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist’s view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

Dogs Are Still Dogs

Animals reproducing fertile offspring according to their own kind, is what we see in nature.  We see hundreds of varieties of dogs, but dogs are still dogs.  This (largely human-caused) variation in dogs is often called evolution.  This is reflected in the Seed Magazine article “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” (Anthes 2006), which discusses not the macroevolution of how a non-dog turned Dog breeding is not macro evolutioninto a dog, but how through human intervention “the domestication of dogs by humans has given rise to the immense diversity of the canine species by allowing otherwise harmful genetic mutations to survive.”  (Anthes 2006)   This “evolution” that Anthes refers to is nothing more than variation within a kind.  Nevertheless, she is echoed by theNaturalHistoryMuseum inLondon which says that the breeding of dogs shows evolution as well.  (Batten 1996)   Here again, we are given an example of Natural Selection (adaptation and variation, which are factual and observed) and are led to believe that it is equivalent to molecules-to-man evolution.

However, there is no “evolution” of the dog at all, other than variation due greatly to humans.  Interestingly, the study of genetics confirms that all dogs have come from a common ancestry. “Most breeds have developed during the past 500 years, […] Before humans began breeding dogs for certain traits or behaviors, dogs were more general in their appearance or morphology […]” (Dalke 2002).  The multiplicity of dogs is not a proof of evolution but of dog’s best friend manipulating him to better suit man.  “Breeds tell us more about human preferences than about dogs […] Dog breeds are the result of human preferences—selected traits taken from generation to generation.” (Dalke 2002).  “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” would be better titled “Man’s Breeding of Dogs”.


[1] See: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/

splash.html

 

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 2 of 3: Geological Evidence)

The Rocks Speak

Radiometric Dating

Radiometric Dating

The other seemingly unsolvable enigma is that of radiometric dating of rocks yielding ages billions of years old. According to the popular definition of Wikipedia, “radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials based on a knowledge of the decay rates of naturally occurring isotopes, and the current abundances” (Wikipedia Radiometric Dating 2006). Since these decay rates occur extremely slowly, it is believed that the material being dated is of great antiquity. There are inherent problems involved with this method, thus not making it a failsafe method of dating rocks.[1] The work on Polonium radiohalos by Dr. Gentry and the work on Zircon crystals by the RATE team strongly challenge the accepted assumptions involved with radiometric dating. In fact, their independent research has yielded some “rock solid” evidence that the earth is not billions of years old but only several thousand.

Order The First Six Days Here

Polonium Radiohalos

Beginning in 1987, nuclear physicist Dr. Robert Gentry began examining discolorations in minerals. He has since examined over 100,000 of these “radiohalos” found in rocks making his work the foundation of polonium halo research. He describes these “radiohalos:” “Etched within earth’s foundation rocks (the granites) are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence” (www.halos.com/index.htm).

An example analogous to Alka-Seltzer is given demonstrating the fleeting life of the radioactive polonium. It is this moment in which the radiohalos can be captured that yields proof to them having cooled instantaneously (during time of the flood according to the RATE team, see below) rather than the supposed slow cooling of the earth suggested by evolution.

polonium radiohalos

polonium radiohalos

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation (www.halos.com/index.htm).

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

An eight-year study began in 1997 that involved seven scientists with the primary goal of clarifying the chronology of the earth by studying, in particular, the properties of zircon crystals, (similar to the work of Dr. Gentry with polonium). The research has now culminated in evidence strongly indicating that the earth is young. The seven scientists gave their research effort the acronym RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. The findings of their research are available in a two-volume set Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, in a layman’s version (book and DVD) called Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung who offers a partial summary of their research:

RATE research obtained some of the first high-precision data on helium diffusion in zircon. A theoretical model based on this data gives an age for the earth of about 6,000 years. The presence of helium in zircons is a serious challenge to the concept of deep time. The helium also represents compelling evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the past (DeYoung 2005: 176).

These and many more resources demonstrating that the apparent Achilles’ heel of the Young Earth Creation model is not a fatal blow are available at the Institute for Creation Research’s website (icr.org).

The findings of Dr. Gentry on polonium radiohalos and the RATE team on zircon crystals provide compelling evidence based on thorough investigation, experimentation, and observation that the earth is not billions of years old, but is rather approximately six thousand years old, thus implying that the creation week was six literal days.

The Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens: Keys to Geology

Strata of Grand Canyon

Strata of Grand Canyon Photo Anna Hamp

The Grand Canyon is certainly one of the earth’s most amazing places. It leaves us in awe of its size and beauty. There are, however, many questions that are raised in relation to it. The most central questions are how did it form and how long did the process take? The answer lies in looking primarily at the canyon walls. There are hundreds of thousands and even millions of layers also known as strata. These layers, when looking from the side, look like many pieces of cardboard stacked upon another. The accepted geological explanation for these strata is that each layer represents an annual or few years’ cycle of deposition of minerals. Then the Colorado River (at its current rate) cut through the canyon exposing the strata that had already been laid down.

Therefore it is believed that since there are millions of strata, it must have taken hundreds of thousands or millions of years to form. Could there be, however, another plausible explanation for the almost innumerable layers?

 

Cataclysmic Change

 

On May 18, 1980, scientists and tourists from all over the world witnessed an event that would provide a much better and almost inescapable model than the standard uniformitarianism model. In that year, Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington erupted so violently that it lost over 1,300 feet of elevation and the entire inside of the mountain fell down the face of the mountain depositing the sediment in the valley below. Trees for miles north of the mountain were leveled and burned. The beauty of the mountain and lake below was altered forever. However, the event that would ultimately challenge the slow gradual change model of the Grand Canyon did not occur until two years later when, in the winter of 1982, another eruption occurred. At that time, due to the accumulation of snow on the mountain, when the eruption occurred, the massive amount of snow almost instantly turned into water and began rushing down the mountain. The huge surge of water carved a canyon ¼ the size of the Grand Canyon.

The Canyon Formed Quickly

 

What is so astounding, however, is that the canyon took only several hours to a few days to be formed. The power of the water quickly cut through the sediment that had been laid down two years prior in the first eruption (an event that occurred over a period of a few hours.) The walls of this mini Grand Canyon exposed almost identical stratification as found in the Grand Canyon. If both the strata from the deposition of the sediment and the deep cutting of a canyon (even through solid rock) can be formed in as little as a few hours, then how do we know that the stratification of the Grand Canyon is not also the product of massive sediment depositions left behind

Little Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens (photgraph by Douglas Hamp)

Little Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens (photgraph by Douglas Hamp)

from a worldwide flood and the cutting of the canyon is not also an enormous release of water which happened shortly after? Austin notes:

The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! (Austin 1986: 3).

Footprints in the Ash

Drs. John Morris and Steven Austin have written a book, Footprints in the Ash, that deals at length with the overwhelming evidence. The book shows that formation of the Grand Canyon could have occurred quickly as a result of a worldwide flood rather than over millions of years just as things happened quickly on a smaller scale at Mount St. Helens. The evidence of Mount St. Helens provides a better and more consistent model of the age of the earth as being young, which, as we have seen, is the only acceptable conclusion one may come to from reading the Scriptures.

Go to part one here.

Go to part three here.


[1] For detailed results on the dating of a rock of known age, see: answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp.

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 3 of 3: The Fossil Record)

The Testimony of the Fossil Record

Charles Lyell predecesor to Darwin

Charles Lyell

One final area to consider is the fossil record because it is considered to be proof positive of an old earth and the transitional forms needed to support the model of molecule-to-man evolution. Just as the traditional interpretation of stratification at the Grand Canyon, which indicates millions of years of age, is not necessarily the best interpretation of the data when compared with the Little Grand Canyon at Mount St. Helens, which happened very quickly, so too the traditional interpretation of the geological column as representing millions of years is to be questioned. The geological column is the supposed order of evolutionary life forms as recorded in the fossils found in sedimentary rocks. James Hutton in Theory of the Earth (1795) and Charles Lyell in Principles of Geology (1830) popularized the idea that the earth was hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years old based on the study of sedimentary rocks.

As fossils were found in those rocks, the fossils were claimed to have a similar age to the rocks. The geological column was a major source of inspiration and basis for Charles Darwin in the development of his evolutionary hypothesis. Though no “missing links” had been found in his day, he remained hopeful that the fossil record would eventually yield the intermediary fossils so badly needed to support his model. Nevertheless, he notes the conspicuous lack of evidence for his model:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (Darwin 1902 edition, emphasis mine).

About 150 years have passed from when Darwin penned that statement, and unquestionably, millions of fossils have been found, but none of them are “missing links” needed to substantiate his ideas. This is not only according to young-earth arguments (consistent with six literal days of creation), but also according to numerous evolutionists. The geological column, drawn in detailed tables in text books, is the basis of the dating of the evolutionary stages. Ironically, this column, which is at the heart of the evolutionary time-scale, is merely a construct, a mental abstraction (Encyclopedia Britannica 1985: 779). Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association notes: “Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, anywhere near complete” (Ager 1993: 14). The geological column is the primary way by which fossils and rocks are dated. When a fossil is found, the rocks around it are checked to determine the age of the fossil and vice versa, when a particular rock is found, it is compared to the surrounding fossils to determine its age.

This type of circular reasoning is noted by several evolutionists. J. E. O’Rourke, in the American Journal of Science states: “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately” (O’Rourke, Volume 276: 51). R. H. Rastal of Cambridge plainly acknowledges, “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle.” He then further defines what he means by circularity: ”The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain” (Encyclopedia Britannica 1976: 168). Another evolutionist, Tom Kemp of Oxford, also is aware of the circular reasoning involved in the dating of the geological column. He states: “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory” (Kemp 1985: 67). D. B. Kitts of the University of Oklahoma stated regarding the circular foundation of the geological column in Evolution, Volume 28: “But the danger of circularity is still present. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation [the geological column]” (Kitts 1974: 466). Kitts goes on to say “for almost all contemporary paleontologists it [the geological column] rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis” (ibid). There are many more evolutionists that have made similar statements that are beyond the scope of this chapter to cover. Nevertheless, notice that accepting the geological column rests on the acceptance of evolution and in turn evolution is confirmed by the geological column. All of the evolutionists here agree that using the rocks to date the fossils and also using the fossils to date the rocks is circular reasoning. If one of the keystones upon which the supposed millions and billions of years of evolution is built is faulty, (due to the fallacy of circular reasoning) then the fossil record is not a valid objection to a literal six-day creation.

Six Days Are Enough

We asked whether six days were enough for all the events of creation to occur in light of perhaps the greatest objections to a literal, six-day creation. Though we only scratched the surface of enormous areas of study, we did see that there are excellent answers available. It is possible from a physics standpoint for the earth to be young and for the light from the edge of the universe fifteen billion light years away to have arrived in the span of six earth days. Likewise, the study of polonium “radiohalos” and zircon crystals provides weighty evidence that traditional methods of dating the rocks of the earth may be faulty. The data actually seem to confirm an earth of approximately six thousand years. We also saw that when the Grand Canyon is compared to the Little Grand Canyon at Mt St Helens, Washington, which is known to have formed rapidly, then millions of years are not required. In fact, the evidence points to the Grand Canyon having formed quickly from a cataclysmic event, such as a cataclysmic flood. Lastly we saw that, according to evolutionists, the way in which fossils and rocks are dated is by circular reasoning. While these may not be the ultimate solutions to the four big “scientific” objections to a literal, six-day creation, they do sufficiently demonstrate that excellent answers exist. Thus we can affirm that the Bible is reliable in all that it records, especially regarding creation.



[1] For detailed results on the dating of a rock of known age, see: answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp.

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 1 of 3: Starlight and Time)

If we truly affirm that God made the heavens and the earth in six literal days several thousand years ago, we are forced to consider four questions that have a direct association with such a worldview. If the heavens and the earth are young, then: (1) How could light from the edges of the universe, which is estimated to be 15 billion light years away, be here now? (2) Why does radioisotope dating seem to point to the vast majority of the earth’s rocks being many billions of years old? (3) How do we account for the many layers of strata in places like the Grand Canyon indicating that it was formed over millions of years? (4) What about many fossils in the geologic column which are claimed to prove millions of years of evolution? We will very briefly touch upon these enormous areas of study just to see that there are very plausible answers from a literal, six-day creationist perspective.

These four questions have essentially served as the foundation of the evolutionary time scale and provide a dilemma for all who hold the Bible as God’s Word. A solution popularized by Dr. Hugh Ross is to set up the witness of creation on a par with God’s written Word. He says:

God’s revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible’s words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Just as we rightfully expect interpretations of Isaiah to be consistent with those of Mark, so too we can expect interpretations of the facts of nature to be consistent with the messages of Genesis and the rest of the Canon.

Some readers might fear I am implying that God’s revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God’s truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another (Ross 1994: 56–57).

Dr. Ross is of course correct in that we expect the facts of nature to be consistent with Scripture. The problem, however, is not with the revelation of nature as a testament of God’s power. Indeed, Psalm 19:1 even supports such a statement: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Paul in the book of Romans (1:20) adds decisively “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” There is no conflict between the Bible and nature, but rather with man’s interpretation of nature and the Bible. God’s general revelation of nature correctly interpreted is always 100 percent consistent with God’s written revelation the Bible.

Dr. Ross is assuming that the evolutionary paradigm is the correct interpretation of nature. He has failed to mention that many of the theories that have provided us with ages of the earth and the universe are based on the evolutionary belief that there is no God. He has also erred because the Bible never changes. The truths contained therein never change and have withstood the testing of skeptics and critics for over two thousand years. However, man’s interpretation of the world around him has done nothing but change as long as man has kept history. By making creation the sixty-seventh book of the Bible by which we can interpret the Bible, he is requiring man’s interpretation of nature (with all of our biases and incomplete knowledge) to be the judge of the Bible. Rather, we need to let nature be subject to the interpretation of the Bible, for only then will the correct interpretation be obtained.

Starlight and Time

The question of how could light from fifteen billion light years away arrive in just six days has been taken up by Dr. Russell Humphreys. Star Light and Time In his book, Starlight and Time (PDF download) (2004), he proposes an answer to the seemingly unsolvable enigma. The foundation of his theory lies in the fact that we know for certain that clocks change based on how close one is to a strong gravitational field or potential. He points out that the atomic clock in Greenwich, England, which is at sea level, ticks five microseconds slower per year than an identical clock in Boulder, Colorado (Humphreys 2004: 12). Because the clock in Boulder is approximately one mile higher in altitude than its counterpart in Greenwich, it ticks five microseconds per year faster. The Boulder clock is further away from the center of the earth, approximately the center of gravity, and is in a weaker gravitational field as a result. Dr. Stan Sholar, a retired aerospace scientist, confirms the reality of this phenomenon:

One should make a distinction between the rate of passage of time and the behavior of clocks, or anything that measures time. If we define time as behavior of clocks then this distinction disappears. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity shows that lengths change with velocity, and clocks, whether pendulums or atomic, respond to such, but also to gravity. For clocks in GPS satellites, we have to correct for the slightly non-circular orbits where velocity and altitude vary continuously.

For example, near apogee (the greatest distance from earth), the slower velocity causes the clock to run faster, due to Special Relativity. Also here there is a General Relativity effect due to the higher gravitational potential (though lower force) causing the clock Evidence of a young universeto run even faster at the higher altitude. The point being that it is actually an even more profound example because of the fact that the clocks on orbit are much higher than Boulder CO, and relative to Greenwich (Sholar, personal communication September 23, 2006).

Thus, just here on earth we find concrete evidence that the measurement of time’s rate of passing changes according to the proximity of the clocks to a strong gravitational field, as approximately indicated by proximity to the earth’s center of gravity. Humphreys then notes that the mathematics demonstrate that while the earth’s clock was ticking at what he coins “Earth Standard Time” the clock in the outer parts of the universe was ticking faster and hence “the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances” (Humphreys 2004: 13).

I spoke personally with Dr. Humphreys at a conference in Anaheim, CA in February of 2005 after hearing him present his theory. After sharing with him how much I liked his theory, he humbly replied that his was not the final answer, but merely a plausible explanation. Dr. Humphreys presents a theory to solve such a difficult dilemma, but in the end, it is not the answer but a plausible explanation, which is satisfactory because none of us was there to witness exactly what techniques God used. Nevertheless, what is crucial to note is that there are scientifically plausible theories that support the biblical account without seeking to spiritualize, or allegorize, or even dismiss the clear writing of the text.

From The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

The Day God Created Dinosaurs

According to evolutionary time scales, the dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago and died out about 65 million years ago.  Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis and accepting the record of the dinosaurs, however, would seem to be diametrically opposed. Therefore what are we to do with the dinosaurs if we also hold to a literal, six-day creation only several thousand years ago?

 

Dinosaurs Were Real

Some believers in the inerrancy of the Bible have simply dismissed the dinosaurs as having never existed almost as a knee-jerk-reaction to the controversy concerning the supposed missing links of human ancestry.[i]  The collection of dinosaur bones, however, is a completely different question from that of man’s supposed early ancestors, and hence their existence should not be in question.

 

The number of dinosaur bones that has been discovered is staggering.  They have been found all over the world in large quantities, and sometimes entire skeletons have been found intact.  There should be no doubt among young earth creationists that dinosaurs were real creatures that existed in great quantities in the past.  The big question at hand is: when did they exist?  The Bible-believing adherents of an old earth see the reality of dinosaurs as one more reason that evolutionary timescales must be true and must have taken place over millions of years.  Indeed, we have been told so many times that dinosaurs died out around 65 millions years ago, that men and dinosaurs never coexisted, and that holding to a literal creation of six, 24-hour days of creation a few thousand years ago would seem to pose some problems.  It is only a problem, however, until we realize that the Bible actually speaks of dinosaurs being created during the first six days and coexisting with men.

 

Where Are the Dinosaurs in the Bible?

So just where in the Bible are dinosaurs mentioned?  The word dinosaur, per se, is never mentioned in the Bible.  The word was not coined until 1841, twenty years after a British doctor, Dr. Mantell, discovered some teeth and bones in a quarry.  They were so different from the bones and teeth of known lizards that they were eventually given a new name by another British scientist, Dr. Owen, who called them dinosaurs, meaning terrible lizards.  Given that the name itself was not coined until the 1800’s, we would not expect to find it in the Bible as such.  But that does not mean that the Bible doesn’t mention them by another name.

 

There are, in fact, dozens of verses that speak of dinosaurs sometimes as actual living physical creatures and sometimes as either physical or symbolic creatures.[ii]  We will look at the three main words in Hebrew, תנינם tanninim, בהמות behemoth, and לויתן Leviathan, which designate dinosaurs of various types.  Though there are other words such as Rahab and nahash, which some people suggest refer to dinosaurs, their designation as dinosaurs is speculative.  Therefore, we will focus on the large number of strong examples that we already have to work with.

Tanninim

The first word, tanninim, is found in Genesis 1:21, the fifth day of creation: “So God created great sea creatures [תנינם tanninim] and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  The word tanninim appears 27 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, 21 of which have been translated as dragon (or dragons) in the King James Version (KJV), three times as serpent (and serpents), once as monster, and twice as whale (and whales).[iii]  Thus, we don’t actually see the word dinosaur written in the text of an English Bible, but it is lying below the surface in the original language.  Just how are we to understand this word though?  Is this word referring to great whales as the KJV translates it here or as great sea creatures or great sea monsters as we see in other versions?  Is it simply understood in a generic sense of a big creature or more specifically as a dinosaur-dragon-type creature?

 

The Origin of the Word

The origin of the word is not absolutely certain.  The most accepted Hebrew lexicon, Brown Driver Briggs, suggests the following meanings: 1) dragon, serpent, sea monster 1a) dragon or dinosaur 1b) sea or river monster 1c) serpent, venomous snake, though it suggests that tanninim may be related to a more primitive root of tan meaning to howl, and hence, by implication, jackal.  This latter suggestion is questioned by many scholars due to linguistic considerations.  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible states regarding the origin of this word:

 

AARTUN has revived the proposal […] that Tannin is derived from a geminate root TNN, “to smoke, ascension of smoke”, leading to the Ugaritic “the dragon, (sea) monster, snake (stretching out/moving forward like smoke).” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 834)

 

Three Root Letters

Semitic languages are fascinating in that (almost) every word consists of three root letters that serve as the foundation of the word.  By adding prefixes, suffixes, and changing the vowels, the application (and implication) of the word changes, but the essential meaning remains the same.  This idea can be seen in English, although it is still slightly different, in some words like save, savior, and salvation.  These three words are all related with the common meaning of save, though they obviously have different roles.

 

In Hebrew and all Semitic languages, there are three principal letters which give a word its essential meaning.  tanninim consists of the three-root letters tav, nun, nun or TNN.  Just as there are Spanish, French, and Italian words that are practically the same (such as gato, chat, and gatto, respectively meaning cat), the same is true of Semitic languages where a word in one language can be almost identical to that in another language.  Thus, to find that the root TNN appears with a similar meaning in an ancient language called Ugaritic, which was spoken around approximately 1400 B.C. in what is today Lebanon, greatly helps us narrow down the search for the meaning.

 

According to R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, the word appears eight times (Whitaker 1972: 619).  Six of those are couched in mythological texts, and three of those are concerning tunnanu, the great sea monsters.  J.C.L. Gibson translates a particular text as “In the sea are Arsh and the dragon” (Gibson 1977: 81).  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible notes that the ideogram, which is a type of written picture, for tunnanu, is that of a snake (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 835).  Thus comparing the Hebrew word tanninim with the Ugaritic, we find that the word was indeed related to a creature, though associated with the Ugaritic gods, that was, nonetheless, a type of aquatic dragon which may have also breathed fire.

 

Dragons in the Septuagint

We should also consider the testimony of the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures done in approximately 270 B.C. by Alexandrian Jews.  Therein we can gain an insight into an ancient understanding of the word.  The Septuagint translates the word in Genesis 1:21 as κητη (kete) which means monster.  However, the majority of the occurrences of the word tanninim are translated as δρaκων (drakon), which is the origin of the English word dragon.  There are many references to dragons in Greek literature.  They were snake-like monsters (though often with feet) that were guardians of important places; they were not merely whales.  Hence, the Greek translation of the word points in the direction that this class of creatures that God created on the fifth day was indeed a dragon or, in modern language, a type of  sea “dinosaur”[iv].

Behemoth

The next word is behemoth found in Job 40:15.  Behemoth is the plural of the feminine noun behema, which simply means beast.  It is curious to note here that behemoth, though plural, takes a singular and masculine verb (in Hebrew the number and gender of nouns and verbs must agree) thereby signifying not beasts, but a specific type of creature.  Thus, the word behemoth here is not just a plural form, but a completely different creature or beast.

 

God’s Description of Behemoth

In this passage, God comes, per Job’s request, to testify that He is altogether above man’s understanding and challenges Job to consider His creations, “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you…” (Job 40:15)  Notice how God declares that He made the behemoth along with Job.  But even more importantly is the command “look now” – a clear statement that this creature was created at the same time and apparently lived contemporarily with Job, or he would not have had a clue what God was talking about and certainly would not have been able to “look” at what God was talking about.[v]  God then lists many of the attributes of this creature that we will look at to get the best picture possible of what kind of animal this truly was.

 

Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;

He eats grass like an ox.

See now, his strength is in his hips,

And his power is in his stomach muscles.

He moves his tail like a cedar;

The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

His bones are like beams of bronze,

His ribs like bars of iron.

He is the first of the ways of God;

Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

Surely the mountains yield food for him,

And all the beasts of the field play there.

He lies under the lotus trees,

In a covert of reeds and marsh.

The lotus trees cover him with their shade;

The willows by the brook surround him.

Indeed the river may rage,

Yet he is not disturbed;

He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,

Though he takes it in his eyes,

Or one pierces his nose with a snare. (Job 40:15-24, emphasis mine)

 

God says that “He eats grass like an ox.”  To say that the creature is like an ox in the food it eats means that it is not an ox, but rather it is only similar in the way that they both eat grass.  There have been three main explanations as to what known animal this could be: elephant, crocodile, or hippopotamus.  Both elephants and hippos are known to eat grass, while crocodiles, on the other hand, eat only meat (frogs, insects, or larger animals), but never grass.  We can safely conclude that this creature is not a crocodile just from its diet.

 

Elephant or Hippo?

Could it be either an elephant or a hippo?  Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian of the 13th century, suggested that behemoth is in fact an elephant (Jackson 2005).  This animal could possibly be an elephant in that they both eat grass, but what about the other characteristics?  Do they really fit those of an elephant?  “See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles” (Job 40:16).  The strength of an elephant is in its trunk, shoulders, and head.  Its hips and stomach, though not weak compared to ours, are certainly not its outstanding characteristics.  God then continues describing the animal, “He moves his tail like a cedar…” (Job 40:17).

 

Just how big is a cedar tree?  According to one source, a Lebanon cedar tree (assuming that is what Job would have

Cedar of Lebanon

understood) typically grows to around 81 feet tall and 112 inches (9.33 ft) in diameter.  The tail of an adult male elephant measures between seven to ten inches at the widest part! [vi]  And just what would it be like to wag a tail that is like a cedar?  Obviously, anything that got in its path would experience serious devastation.  Getting in the path of an elephant’s tail might not smell great, but it probably would not do much harm.  What can be said about the tail of an elephant is equally true of a hippopotamus – the tail is little more than a fly swatter!

 

It’s a Tail and Nothing Else

Some have tried to suggest that the Hebrew word זנב (zanav tail) should in fact be translated as the male genital instead.  This theory is nothing more than an attempt to draw attention away from the true issue that in this text the tail of this creature does not fit that of any normal everyday kind of creature.  Zanav is used eleven times in the Hebrew Bible including this passage in Job.  Every occurrence outside of Job refers to a tail whether it be an animal’s literal tail or a figurative usage of what comes after and not before.  Several of those times[vii] the word is further defined by the contrast with the head, leaving little doubt that a tail, and not a sexual organ, is being referred to.

 

The Bones

Next God states what his bones are like.  To take this passage literally means that we understand that the text suggests that the bones are like bronze and iron, although they are not made of those actual materials.  Care must be given not to overlook those small but important words that allow us to interpret literally.  Nevertheless, the picture is given that the bones of this creature were of immense strength implying that the creature itself was extremely big to need such strong bones.  Although one could argue that elephants and hippos possess such strong bones, it would fit well in describing the strength of dinosaur bones, too.  In fact, considering that “the weight of Brachiosaurus, the largest plant-eating dinosaur, is 50 metric tons” according to the Indian Institute of Astrophysics website, which is 49.2 English tons, its bones would have to be extremely strong.  An adult, male, African elephant, the largest of all elephants, weighs in at 6.8 tons.  While we should certainly not want it to step on our feet, it is much, much lighter than the heaviest of dinosaurs.  The Brachiosaurus is seven times heavier than the elephant.  The implications of such enormous size are summarized as follows:

 

Galileo was the first to address the problem of support faced by land animals in the early 1600s. He theorized about the relation of size to strength and structure. Consider two animals of different sizes that are geometrically similar. If the larger is twice as long as the smaller animal, it is also twice as wide and twice as high. The larger creature outweighs its smaller counterpart eight times. Although the volume is eight times larger, the strength of its legs increases only by a factor of four. Thus, eight times the weight would have to be carried by only four times the bone strength. If an animal becomes progressively bigger without changing its shape, it must eventually reach a size at which it is incapable of supporting itself.  (Indian Institute of Astrophysics 2006)

 

While the above explanation does not consider the elephant and the Brachiosaurus specifically, the principle holds true that the bones of the dinosaur would have needed to be extremely strong to support such an enormous creature.  Thus, the Bible’s description of the bones being like bronze and iron is in no way an exaggeration if the animal were indeed a large dinosaur such as the Brachiosaurus.  In fact, it would seem that no other creature except such a giant would merit the description of having bones like bronze and iron.

Leviathan

After questioning Job about his knowledge of Behemoth, God then continues to challenge him regarding another creature, whose description has caused many to dismiss it as purely myth.  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible states, “Obviously the author of Job 41 had access to some animal mythological literature relating to the Egyptian tradition” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 513).  The author matter-of-factly states that the biblical writer, whom I believe to be Job, borrowed the tradition from another culture.  The author of the dictionary has effectively declared that it was not God who spoke those words to Job, but rather some unknown author who was inspired by another culture.

 

A Dragon/Snake-Like Creature

A root similar to Leviathan is found in an Ugaritic text[viii]litanu whose etymology is thought to be either “the twisting one (cf. Arabic lawiya) or the wreath-like, the circular (cf. Heb liwya), both possibilities pointing to an original concept of Leviathan as a snake-like being” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 511).  Other than this connection, no other supporting evidence is given to substantiate the claim that Job, or whoever is believed to have written the biblical book of Job, borrowed the idea from others rather than being told divinely from God Himself.  Most Ugaritic texts are from the 15th century B.C., although many believe that the book of Job is much older than that.  Granted, the date of Job is controversial and not altogether certain.  However, if the early date of Job is accepted, then it is at least possible that the account in Job is the original, while the Ugaritic account is merely a distortion of it.  Although we may not be able to prove conclusively which account is older, we can look at the Bible’s own description of this amazing creature.

 

God’s Description of Leviathan

We are told in Isaiah 27:1 that at that point God will “punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; and He will slay the reptile that is in the sea.”  Due to the end times nature of this passage, it cannot be ruled out that this may be metaphorical language referring to Satan who is called the dragon of old in Revelation 12:9.  On the other hand, we are told specifically that the creature lives in the sea and is some type of twisting serpent-like creature as we saw in the Ugaritic text.

 

Psalms 104:26, 27 provides an important naturalistic description of Leviathan indicating that it was a real, historical creature as far as the Bible is concerned.  “There the ships sail about; There is that Leviathan which You have made to play there.  These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season.”  The fact that Leviathan lives where the ships sail and is listed with the innumerable teeming things which live in the sea (Psalms 104:25) strongly demonstrates that, whatever it was, it was one of the many creatures that God made.  The detailed description of Leviathan is given in Job 41 where God challenges Job if he is able to contend with Leviathan, with the implication that God alone is able.

 

Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,

Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?

Can you put a reed through his nose,

Or pierce his jaw with a hook?

Will he make many supplications to you?

Will he speak softly to you?

Will he make a covenant with you?

Will you take him as a servant forever?

Will you play with him as with a bird,

Or will you leash him for your maidens?

Will your companions make a banquet of him?

Will they apportion him among the merchants?  (Job 41:1-6)

 

Not an Ordinary Creature!

God is stating in unambiguous terms that this creature is no ordinary creature.  He is not some animal that one can tame like the other animals and is not one that is taken as food for a banquet (verse 6).  God then goes on to describe how this creature is practically invincible because no spear can pierce him and his entire body is covered with a type of armor impenetrable to man’s weapons.

 

Can you fill his skin with harpoons,

Or his head with fishing spears?

Lay your hand on him;

Remember the battle–  never do it again!

Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;

Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?

No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.

(Job 41:7-10)

 

Invincible

The description that God gives of this creature is remarkable.  There is no known animal on the entire earth that was so fierce that man could not conquer it.  God declares that because no one would dare stir Leviathan up that there was no one who was able to stand against God.  No elephant, hippopotamus, crocodile, or any other creature is invincible to man.  Although many men may die fighting, given enough spears and men, every creature would eventually fall at the hands of men — with the exception of one.  This creature can be conquered by God alone.  God continues describing Leviathan.

 

“I will not conceal his limbs,

His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.

Who can remove his outer coat?

Who can approach him with a double bridle?

Who can open the doors of his face,

With his terrible teeth all around?

His rows of scales are his pride,

Shut up tightly as with a seal;

One is so near another

That no air can come between them;

They are joined one to another,

They stick together and cannot be parted. (Job 41:12-17)

 

 

Some remarkable traits of Leviathan are his terrible teeth, true of the crocodile but certainly not of the elephant or hippopotamus.  The teeth is where the similarity to the crocodile ends, however, for Leviathan has an outer coat which none can remove and has rows of scales which no air can come between nor can they be parted.  It is true that crocodiles have a hard and scaly backside, but their belly is soft and vulnerable.  In verse 30 we are told that his undersides are sharp and that he leaves marks in the mire – characteristics hardly true of the crocodile.

 

Fire Breathing

What is truly shocking about Leviathan is that God states that he breathed fire.

 

His sneezings flash forth light,

And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

Out of his mouth go burning lights;

Sparks of fire shoot out.

Smoke goes out of his nostrils,

As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.

His breath kindles coals,

And a flame goes out of his mouth. (Job 41:18-21)

 

I admit that when I first contemplated the thought of a fire-breathing dragon as actually being real, I was skeptical.  But then I began to consider it and eventually came to the conclusion: why not?  After all, Fireflies (One of God’s Amazing Creatures) are tiny creatures that produce something inside of them that produces light as do numerous bioluminescent marine animals including the electric eel.  Certainly an amazing creature is the bombardier beetle, which, when being attacked by a predator, can release chemicals in its rear to provide about 70 quick explosions which are fatal to other insects.  Thus, if a little beetle is able to  create an explosion from its tiny body, who is to say that dinosaurs might not also have been able to breathe fire?  Perhaps the legends of fire-breathing dragons from all over the world actually hold some validity.

 

A Shining Wake

God then finishes by giving some other characteristics of Leviathan that separate him from all other creatures, especially any of the animals living today.  He could swim so rapidly and above the surface of the water that he left a shining wake making people think that the “deep had white hair”!  In God’s words, there is nothing like him on earth and so “…he is king over all the children of pride” (verse 34):

 

Strength dwells in his neck,

And sorrow dances before him.

The folds of his flesh are joined together;

They are firm on him and cannot be moved.

His heart is as hard as stone,

Even as hard as the lower millstone.

When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;

Because of his crashings they are beside themselves.

Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;

Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.

He regards iron as straw,

And bronze as rotten wood.

The arrow cannot make him flee;

Slingstones become like stubble to him.

Darts are regarded as straw;

He laughs at the threat of javelins.

His undersides are like sharp potsherds;

He spreads pointed marks in the mire.

He makes the deep boil like a pot;

He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.

He leaves a shining wake behind him;

One would think the deep had white hair.

On earth there is nothing like him,

Which is made without fear.

He beholds every high thing;

He is king over all the children of pride.” (Job 41:22 – 34)

 

Impenetrable Armor

Anna Gosline, writing for the NewScientist.com news service, writes about the amazing body armor of one type of dinosaur known as Ankylosaurs, which, though it is not to be equated with Leviathan, does provide an excellent example of what these impenetrable scales may have been like – pointing to the veracity of the account in Job 41.

 

An in-depth study of dinosaur armor has revealed an unexpected new level of strength, with some plates having a weave of fibers resembling today’s bulletproof fabrics. The likely strength of such plates makes the dinosaurs studied – ankylosaurs – perhaps the best – protected creatures to have ever stalked the Earth […] Ankylosaurs were massive herbivores that grew up to 10 meters in length during the late Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. The coin-sized plates sported by the ankylosaurs fully covered their back, neck, head and even protected their eyes […] They had sets of structural fibers running parallel and perpendicular to the surface, and then further sets at 45° to each of these axes, providing strength in all directions. The fibers of the bulletproof fabric Kevlar are similarly arranged. (Gosline 2004)

 

Where is the proof?

So the Bible does in fact claim that men and dinosaurs once lived together.  However, there is still so much research regarding dinosaurs and so many experts attest that they died out about 65 million years ago.  If the dinosaurs really did exist with men as the Bible claims, shouldn’t we see some proof of that other than mere oral accounts that many believe are suspect to exaggeration and mythologizing?  Wouldn’t we expect to see some hard facts substantiating men and dinosaurs living together?

Soft Tissue and Red Blood Cells

The evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted not millions of years ago but only thousands of years ago lies right in front of

T-Rex Soft Tissue

our faces, but out of fear, most refuse to see.  The evidence of Job and the description of two dinosaurs is evidence not to be lightly brushed off; nevertheless, it remains invisible to many.  The discovery of soft tissue complete with blood vessels in dinosaur bones should be just such evidence that should make people reconsider their paradigm.  Dr. Schweitzer, who made the discovery, even suggested, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think” (Peake 2005).  Dr. Carl Wieland remarks regarding the discovery:

One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape”. Dr. Schweitzer…has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.” She also is reported as commenting that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”

 

The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in “millions of years”. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) “70 million years”.

 

Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. (Wieland 2005, emphasis mine)

Dinosaur tissue is an amazing challenge to the old-earth paradigm, but it still doesn’t prove that men and dinosaurs coexisted as the Bible clearly claims.  However, evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together in the past does exist and is available for scrutiny for all who are willing to reconsider the paradigm.  Let’s now consider some archaeological evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together.



[i] A plethora of excellent research has been done in this area demonstrating conclusively that many of the supposed transitional forms were hoaxes, fanciful reconstructions based on pigs’ teeth, merely extinct apes, or just humans – none of which is the missing evolutionary link between men and the imagined ancestor.  Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention is a scholarly, yet very readable, creationist assessment of human fossils.  Mr. Lubenow systematically demonstrates that the bones in question are not the transitional forms the paleontologists have been telling us for so many years.

[ii] See Jeffrey Harrison’s article Dinosaurs and the Bible (2006), for a detailed listing of over forty verses dealing either directly or indirectly with dinosaurs. www.totheends.com/dino.html

[iii]King James Concordance (electronic version: The Word Bible Software): Total KJV Total of occurrences 27 of the root תּנּים / תּנּין tannin / tannim: dragons 15: Deu 32:33, Job 30:29, Psa 44:19, Psa 74:13, Psa 148:7, Isa 13:22, Isa 34:13, Isa 35:7, Isa 43:20, Jer 9:11, Jer 10:22, Jer 14:6, Jer 49:33, Jer 51:37, Mic 1:8

dragon 6: Psa 91:13 (2), Isa 27:1, Isa 51:9, Jer 51:34, Eze 29:3

serpent 2: Exo 7:9-10; monsters 1: Lam 4:3; serpents 1: Exo 7:12; whale 1: Job 7:12; whales 1: Gen1:21

[iv] Dave Wright notes “The sea creatures, like the plesiosaur, are not actually considered dinosaurs. The term “dinosaur” is used to refer to those that live on land. Therefore, dinosaurs were land animals that were created on day six.”  (Dave Wright, Answers In Genesis staff, personal communication, June 9, 2007)

[v] Dr. Sholar notes “when He says, ‘Look now at the behemoth..’ this speaks strongly to me of coexistence.  If it was extinct, however, the ‘look now’ makes no sense for he would not have had any historical record of it.” (Sholar, personal communication September 21, 2006)

[vi] Cedars of Lebanon. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from

www.mcforest.sailorsite.net/ListTest.html

[vii]Exodus 4:4, Deuteronomy 28:13, Deuteronomy 28:44, Judges 15:4, Isa_19:14-15

[viii] KTU 1.5 I:1 27

 

The First Six Days Module

Part Two: Evolution Plus God

Evolution plus God is the position that many people have taken when it comes to the first six days of creation.  They accept the Bible as God’s divine book yet also accept the many facets of evolution as indisputable fact and are forced to squeeze the needed evolutionary time into the pages of the Bible.  Before looking at the evolution plus God theories, however, let us first consider what exactly evolution is.

What is Evolution?

Evolution in its most basic sense is any process of formation or growth; development, derived from the Latin meaning unrolling, according to Random House Dictionary(2006).  There are many things that evolve, so to speak, in our world.  All that we mean, however, is that there is a slow, gradual change occurring in different facets of life.  Let us consider a few examples.

The Changes in Language and Culture

We can speak of the slow progression of the English language as an example of evolution.  The English of today is clearly not the same as that of Shakespeare’s day.  They are both English, but many things have changed radically so that words and expressions of his day have a completely different meaning today.  The change in language is something that happens slowly and in small increments, but we can all agree that it happens.  Consider how it is that we use different expressions than our parents did and our kids use different words and expressions than we do.

Cultures are also going through a process of change or evolution as well.  The culture of America is without doubt different today than it was 50 years ago.  Things that were unacceptable back then are sometimes considered normal by today’s standards.  In both of these examples, however, we are using the word evolution as a description of the slow change that is taking place and as such, the concept is completely acceptable.  After all, these changes are observed linguistically and culturally by experts in the respective fields and simply by the general public.  In other words, we can easily document and conclusively prove that those changes have actually occurred because the starting point is only 50 years ago and not 15 billion or even 6000 years ago.

From Micro to Macro to Abiogenesis

Using the word evolution to describe the slow, steady changes that we undoubtedly witness in languages and cultures is indeed a correct use of the term.  If that were the only way that it was used then there would be no problem whatsoever.  However, the reality is that evolution has been given a new role and meaning; it is used to describe the entire progression of the universe starting with the Big Bang until the present day.  The different phases of evolution include: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural. [1] Biological evolution purports to explain how life started from non-life (properly called abiogenesis) and then how those single-celled organisms eventually turned into you and me.  Douglas Futuyma, a foremost expert in biological evolution notes,

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution…is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual…Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”  (Futuyma 1986)

The above definition is rather misleading, however.  Dr. Futuyma should define for us the three different concepts that he is dealing with under the broad category of biological evolution, which are: Natural Selection (adaptation to an environment, which is sometimes called microevolution), molecules-to-man evolution (change in kind, e.g. reptile to bird, which is sometimes called macroevolution) and abiogenesis (a nonliving piece of rock to a living single-celled organism).  Neither the Bible nor literal six-day creationists are in any way against the concept of Natural Selection, which was actually first introduced by a creationist Edward Blythe.  Changes in species populations, by adapting to their environment, have in fact been witnessed to occur.

Charles Darwin correctly noted that the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands changed according to the climatic conditions.  He called this evolution.  From there he postulated his theory that these small changes, given enough time, could account for all of the living creatures on earth.  Darwin failed to note, however, that the finches were still finches.  They never turned into something else other than finches.  Darwin observed the species’ ability to adapt to its surrounding (which is easily ascribed to an amazing Creator) and from there made the leap of faith that with the magical element of time, one creature will turn into another.

According to Its Kind

The belief in molecules-to-man evolution – that single-celled organisms turned into more complex creatures, which turned into something else, all the way to you and me – is what stands in direct conflict with the Bible and specifically the six days of creation.  Genesis 1:24 specifically states that on the fifth day, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind [מין min]: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.”  This verse acts as an insurmountable obstacle to those who would try to bridge (macro)evolution and the Bible.  God’s words cannot be misconstrued here.  He plainly says that different living creatures will come forth according to their own kind and not from one common ancestor of all.  He then defines what He means by enumerating the creatures: “cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth”, rendering impossible the paradigm that everything came from a different creature smaller and simpler than itself.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains:

Some have argued that when God created “min” [class, kind, species], he thereby fixed the “species.” This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word “min” with the biologist’s descriptive term “species” cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists…God created the basic forms of life called “min” which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or sometimes order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist’s view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

Dogs Are Still Dogs

Animals reproducing fertile offspring according to their own kind, is what we see in nature.  We see hundreds of varieties of dogs, but dogs are still dogs.  This (largely human-caused) variation in dogs is often called evolution.  This is reflected in the Seed Magazine article “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” (Anthes 2006), which discusses not the macroevolution of how a non-dog turned into a dog, but how through human intervention “the domestication of dogs by humans has given rise to the immense diversity of the canine species by allowing otherwise harmful genetic mutations to survive.”  (Anthes 2006)   This “evolution” that Anthes refers to is nothing more than variation within a kind.  Nevertheless, she is echoed by the Natural History Museum in London which says that the breeding of dogs shows evolution as well.  (Batten 1996)   Here again, we are given an example of Natural Selection (adaptation and variation, which are factual and observed) and are led to believe that it is equivalent to molecules-to-man evolution.

However, there is no “evolution” of the dog at all, other than variation due greatly to humans.  Interestingly, the study of genetics confirms that all dogs have come from a common ancestry. “Most breeds have developed during the past 500 years, […] Before humans began breeding dogs for certain traits or behaviors, dogs were more general in their appearance or morphology […]” (Dalke 2002).  The multiplicity of dogs is not a proof of evolution but of dog’s best friend manipulating him to better suit man.  “Breeds tell us more about human preferences than about dogs […] Dog breeds are the result of human preferences—selected traits taken from generation to generation.” (Dalke 2002).  “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” would be better titled “Man’s Breeding of Dogs”.

Views of Biblical Creation

For those holding to the belief that God was the agent of creation, there are four possible answers to the question of how He did it.  The first view is that God took six, literal days as understood by the plain reading of the Genesis text, which is the thesis of this book.  The other three views consider the evolutionary model to be an established fact and therefore seek to reconcile the revelation of Scripture regarding creation with evolution.  The three views are Theistic Evolution, the Gap Theory, and Progressive Creationism.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is the most liberal of the views that ascribes to God a role in creation as being the agent that jump-started the Big Bang.  According to this theory, since then He has allowed evolution to take its course thereby having very little, if any, role in His creation and dealings with man. The First Six Days Module

Proponents of the Gap Theory see the days of Genesis 1 as being literal days but with a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (some also suggest a gap between 1:2 and 1:3).  The rationale for seeking a gap, nevertheless, is due to the belief that (geological) evolution is an established fact and that the Bible must be reconciled to it.  Hence, a time gap is envisioned between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (or 1:2-1:3), which allows for the billions of years supposedly necessary for geological evolution to take place.

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism seeks to reconcile the belief of evolution with the Bible, not by way of a gap between verses 1:1 and 1:2, but rather by redefining six days of Genesis 1 to mean indefinite periods of time in which millions and perhaps billions of years transpired each day.  They see God as being involved in the entire process of creation wherein every day, God was creating via the evolutionary process. [2] Van Bebber and Taylor point out:

According to the Progressive Creationist timeline, Adam was, in effect, created on top of a graveyard of decaying or fossilized animals. Almost anywhere he walked, the remains of millions of dead animals were somewhere below his feet — evidence of death and frequent misery on a massive scale (2006).

Thus, for the Progressive Creationist, both the Bible and the evolutionary model complement one another because the biblical creation account is better understood through the lens of evolutionary thinking.  Undoubtedly, most proponents of both the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism believe in the authority of the Bible.

How Much Time Does God Need?

Rather than ask why couldn’t God have taken billions of years to accomplish His work of creation, the better question is why didn’t God speak once and everything merely come into existence as suggested by Augustine (see chapter 7)?  God, the Supreme Being by which all things exist, could have snapped His divine fingers and everything would have come into being at once.  Thus, even from a literal, six-day-creation standpoint, God took His time in a big way!  Why did He take so long to create everything?  God purposely slowed Himself down rather than just getting it over with.  The reason, found in Exodus 20:11 (and 31:12-17), is that God wanted to establish a pattern which for mankind to follow; God worked for six days and then rested and so should man.

View more of The First Six Days


[1] See: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

[2] A more predominant Progressive Creationist view is that God created the animals as we see them today (i.e. fixity of species) and they lived and died out over millions or billions of years. However, proponents of this view, such as Hugh Ross, do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution, but they do accept the evolutionary timescale for the geologic and fossil records.  (Dave Wright, Answers In Genesis staff, personal communication, June 9, 2007)

Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

Evidence of Men and Dinosaurs Living Together

The following page is taken in whole from s8int.org Please visit their site for more amazing out of place artifacts that challenge the evolutionary/old earth paradigm.
Palestrina Mosaic.

CLICK HERE FOR HIGH RESOLUTION NILE MOSAIC IMAGE

In this article s8int.com will once again, (as we’ve tried to do on more than 50 pages of this section), provide visual evidence that dinosaurs and humans did in fact coexist; this time in the art of the 1st century. In this article we will seek to show that not just dinosaurs but that other fauna said by science to have become extinct millions of years ago were still living up to at least the time of the 1st century A.D.

I was in the library this week poring over literally thousands of pages of early Roman art, including the art of 1st century Pompeii. I spent this time in the library after spending weeks trying to find more copies and higher resolution photos of the pieces being presented here online.

If and when I did find them, in the great majority of cases the representations of the art had been cropped so that the “offending details” had been eliminated. Other companion works were often shown in their entirety and often in higher resolution, but these were not.

Although these art masterpieces should be easy to find—they are not. As you look at the evidence s8int.com presents here, remember that the keepers of the evolutionary paradigm did everything overtly or subtlety possible to keep us from seeing them. That might tend to lend them additional credibility as evidence supporting interaction since there would be no need to surpress or deny information which does not threaten the paradigm.

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina and the hunting mosaic from the “House of the Physician” are incredible works that should be well known to the public in their entirety, but if in fact they were well known, they would be very controversial with respect to the evolutionary timeline.

What we really wonder about is; with respect to the powers that be who conspire to keep this information out of the public eye, do they themselves manage to maintain the belief that dinosaurs and man never coexisted—or is it just the great unwashed true believers out there who have the pure religion? Is the power of denial really that strong?

What we do know is that whatever we do stumble upon here at s8int.com or whatever anyone else discovers is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

The Nile is the longest river in the world, stretching northwards for approximately 4,000 miles from East Africa to the Mediterranean. In addition to Egypt, it flows through the African countries of Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, DR Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia,. Nilotic art like the first century Nile Mosaic of Palestrina detailed life along the Nile.

“The vast Nilotic mosaic (21.3 x 17.3 feet) set into the floor of the apsidal hall adjacent to the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (Palestrina) provides important evidence for what Roman triumphal paintings using topographical conventions may have looked like.

On the mosaic, the Nile winds past vignettes representing exotic landscapes and settlements; the more recondite details are carefully labeled in Greek, underscoring the Alexandrian source of the genre. The precise nature of the relationship between the mosaic and cartographic practices is controversial.

Recently the Palestrina mosaic has been interpreted as an actual topographic map of the Nile: the upper part of the mosaic represents Ethiopia, the upper zone of the lower section represents Egypt, and the foreground represents the Delta, top to bottom understood as south to north, the standard convention for ancient maps.

More likely, however, the mosaic provides a large, coherent landscape composition of the Nile during the flood season, nevertheless dependent on topographical conventions”.( Meyboom )

Dinosaur Art From the House of the Physician-Mid First Century A.D.

“Pompeii is a ruined Roman city near modern Naples in the Italian region of Campania, in the territory of the commune of Pompei. It was destroyed during a catastrophic eruption of the volcano Mount Vesuvius on 24 August 79 AD.

The volcano buried the city under many metres of ash and it was lost for 1,600 years before its accidental rediscovery in 1748. Since then, its excavation has provided an extraordinarily detailed insight into the life of a city at the height of the Roman Empire”……Wikipedia

IMAGES: Both of the images on the left are from the “Hunt” mosaic discovered in the House of the physician in Pompeii, Rome.

When the images are discussed, it is within academia, not with the general public. The apology given for the oversized reptiles is that they are simply nile crocodiles. This is not the case. As we will show, the crocodiles on these Nile works were rendered realistically and accurately as shown in this rendering from the Nile Mosaic on the right.

Note that in the image on the left, and in the complete mural below a man is battling a reptile taller than himself with a shield and a spear. Compare the man, the dinosaur and the building at the center of the image.

The creature on the right has a dermal ridge, unlike a crocodile but exactly like certain dinosaur types which might be safer to sit astride as we will explore below.

CLICK HERE FOR HIGH RESOLUTION MOSAIC IMAGE

There are many armored dinosaur types that fit this reptile portrayal at least as well as the crocodile. Most of them had “low slung” bodies with heights of six feet high or less. One can make up his/her own mind but the hunter astride the reptile is between “plates” on its bck. In addition to the examples shown here, other candidates can be seen by following this link.

Another denial tactic is to label the dark skinned peoples in these mosaics as pygmies (to account for reptile towering over native). However, authorities on Roman art note that its not just blacks who are made diminutive in Roman art but that it was a way of making the Romans seem superior.

African-Roman hercules
African-Roman Hero, Hercules. Fresco, Imperial Roman Pompeii. Hercules stands beside the enthroned Lydian Queen Omphale

Not only blacks were diminutive in the pieces, white or light skinned persons were dwarfed as well. As a matter of fact, Snowden, in his book “Before Color Prejudice” makes note of the egalitarian nature of the Roman civilization, and apparent lack of color discrimination, using examples from ancient Roman Art; many works showing scenes involving both dark skinned and light skinned citizens.

With respect to the three pieces found at the House of the Physician, all portray light skinned and dark skinned dwarves.

This includes “Judgment of Solomon”, (NOT SHOWN) which depicts the Jews as dwarfed and as both dark skinned and light skinned peoples.

The work below is also first century, from the House of the Physician at Pompeii.

Dinosaurs In Literature, History and Art: Part 2

Suppressed Evidence of Human, Dinosaur and Other “Extinct” Fauna Interaction in First Century Roman, Nilotic Art

Extinct Fauna on First Century Roman “Palestrina” Mosaic & Other Works?

As we noted in Part 1 of this article, it has turned out to be extremely difficult to obtain detailed, complete or higher resolution images of both the Palestrina Mosaic as well as the works from the House of the Physician at Pompeii.

In this part of the article using the resources we have, we will attempt to show that there were a number of fauna represented in first or second century ancient Roman art, including several creatures that we now call dinosaurs. These tentative identifications will be made more difficult by the lower resolutions that we have available to us here at s8int.com. we have only been able to study a sample of the fauna represented o the work. If you have access to exclusive academic sources like JSTOR or MUSE, let us know.

Nile Mosaic detail
The Nile mosaic of Palestrina is an ancient mosaic depicting the Nile from Ethiopia to the Mediterranean. It is dated to around 100 BCE, and is thought to have been the work of Demetrius the Topographer, a Greek artist from Ptolemaic Egypt who visited Rome.

The mosaic is located in the city of Palestrina. It contains detailed depictions of Ptolemaic greeks, black Ethiopians in hunting scenes, and various animals of the Nile river.

Wikipedia References:Finley, The Light of the Past, 1965, p93. In this detail, we’ve circled some of the fauna we’re going to highlight in this part of our article….s8int.com

Readers will of course be free to decide for themselves whether or not we’ve been able to make correct observations. Of course we could be wrong about all of them. “Science” would claim that all the dry land creatures are actually crocodiles just as dead sea monster identifications are basking sharks. Those evolutionary believers down at the bottom of the “food chain” will likely agree.

Perhaps they are correct.

However, remember that science also told us that there were primitive “cavemen” called Neanderthal man and the slightly less primitive caveman, Cro-Magnon. These fables and images have permeated our culture for over 100 years.

In order to preserve and promote evolutionary theories of man, as recently as this year science has insisted that Neanderthal; could not speak but could only grunt not having a language, never mated with “modern” man, (but may have mated with apes) did not bury their dead etc, etc.

In November of this year, scientists were able to sequence the DNA of a man they called a “Neanderthal”. His DNA turned out to match “modern humans” to 99.99%. Everyone living today has DNA that matches other humans to 99.99%. This means that your DNA is as close to Neanderthals as it is to Richard Dawkins’, the famous evolutionist at Harvard. Exit caveman.

Oh, and what about the “Gap theorists”. This is a group of Christians so distressed about what science said about primitive man that they invented pre-adamic races to account for “cave men”, doubting the Bible from the first chapter of Genesis, it’s first book? No doubt they will cling to the Gap theory just as evolutionists will cling to evolution and to cave men.

We know that no matter how much evidence is provided, “rationalists” and evolutionists will refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes. Romans 1 says that what may be known about God is from evidence that can be “seen”. Denial is not just a river…

Science was wrong about Neanderthal. Maybe science is wrong about dinosaurs and when they lived as well.

Palestrina Mosaic Dinosaurs?

Iguanodon? See top photo for location on mosaic under the tiger representation.

Several years ago, we came across an image of the Palestrina Mosaic in used book store in a book entitled “The Light of the Past”, by Finley. In that one book we found several things that shouldn’t be there if the evolution paradigm were true. We found evidence that ancient man had lived with dinosaurs.

As it turns out, the high resolution portion of the mosaic featured in that book represented only a small portion of the complete mosaic. Just off to the left of the “dinosaur” being hunted that we featured on the first page of this section was another dinosaur representation we had not seen.

Iguanodon.

We believe it represents a dinosaur similar to iguanodon. We regret that we don’t have a higher resolution photo of this section of the mosaic. It appears here after having tried several filters to make it appear as clearly as possible.

Iguanodon according to science

“(meaning “Iguana tooth”) is the name given to a genus of ornithopod dinosaurs, which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids and their ultimate culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.

They lived between 120 to 140 million years ago, in the Barremian to Valanginian ages of the Early Cretaceous Period, although one dubious species is from the Late Jurassic. Iguanodon’s most distinctive feature was a large razor-sharp ‘thumb spike’, probably used for defense against predators.

Iguanodon was the first dinosaur recognized and the second dinosaur formally named, described in 1822 by English geologist Gideon Mantell. Together with Megalosaurus and Hylaeosaurus, it was one of the three originally used to define the new classification, Dinosauria.

Paleobiology

The various Iguanodon species are bulky herbivores, ranging from 6 to 11 metres (20 to 36 feet) in length, and averaging about 5 tonnes (5.5 tons) in weight. Iguanodon’s thumb spikes were perpendicular to the three main digits.

In early restorations, the spike was placed on the animal’s nose. Later fossils revealed the true nature of the thumb spikes, although their exact purpose is still debated. It could have been used for defense, or for foraging for food…..Wikipedia.

Dinosaur Depiction on Roman Mosaic at Sepphoris?

Detail from floor mosaic discovered at Sepphoris. This is a nilotic scene incorporated into the Dionysos Mosaic.

The mosaic is dated between the first and third centuries. A great earthquake destroyed Sepphoris in 363 A.D.

Note that here warriors/hunters battle the “large reptile” using shields and large rocks.

Palestrina Mosaic Entelodont:? Dinohyus?

Dinohyus

Photo:Dinohyus is just our speculation but it appears to be a enteledont rather than a hippo.

Dinohyus (meaning “terrible pig”) was a large, warthog-like hoofed mammal that lived during the early Miocene, roughly 24 million years ago. This herbivore (it ate plants, including roots) had a long skull (over 1 m = 3 feet long), a small braincase, a pair of knob-like protrusions on the back of the lower jaw (in the cheek area), blunt incisors, and wide, strong canine teeth.

Its long legs probably made it a fast runner. The neck was short and stout and there was a hump on the shoulders formed by spines along the backbone. It was about 6 feet (2 m) tall at the shoulders and was the biggest and among the last of the Entelodonts.

Fossils have been found in western North America (including Battle Creek, South Dakota, USA).

Classification: Class Mammalia (mammals), Order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), Family Entelodontidae (large, pig-like mammals from the Oligocene to early Miocene, including Archaeotherium, Megachoerus, Dinohyus, Entelodon and Eoentelodon), Genus Dinohyus

Source: Metareligion

Palestrina Mosaic Camelops-Extinct Camel?

Camelops

Camelops is an extinct genus of camels that once roamed western North America, where it appeared about 45 million years ago. It migrated to Eurasia and Africa around 2 to 3 million years ago, contrary to various other animals that migrated to North America. Its name is derived from the Greek κάμελος (camel) + ὀψ (face), thus “camel-face.”

Camelops first appeared during the Late Pliocene period and became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene. The reason for its extinction is poorly understood but was part of a larger North American die-off in which native horses, camelids and mastodons also died out.

Because soft tissues are generally not preserved in the fossil record, it is not certain if camelops possessed a hump, like modern camels, or lacked one, like its modern llama relatives….Wikipedia

Palestrina Mosaic -Extinct Horse?

Pliohippus

Photo: The tiny horse in the mosaic could represent any of the small tiny horses science believes were ancestors to modern horses. In reality, they were simply part of the genetic variation God built into all creatures, just as there are large and small dogs.

“Grandfather” to the modern horse, Pliohippus appears to be the source of the latest radiation in the horse family. It is believed to have given rise to Hippidion and Onohippidion, genera that thrived for a time in South American, and to Dinohippus which in turn led to Equus.

Where & When? Fossils of Pliohippus are found at many late Miocene localities in Colorado, the Great Plains of the US (Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. Species in this genus lived from 12-6 million years ago.

Did Pliohippus live during the Pliocene? Or, how do you manage to miss an entire epoch? As incredible as it may sound, recent research shows that Pliohippus and the Pliocene have shrunk in duration so that they completely missed each other!

The problem is twofold. First of all, the epochs like the Pliocene and Miocene are all compared to marine sediments in Europe. It is difficult, although not impossible, to compare the ages of horses with British invertebrate fossils.

Over the years, refinements in our understanding of the Pliocene have resulted in the shrinking of that epoch. It is now believed to have covered a period ranging from about 5.3 to 1.75 million years ago. It formerly included North American land mammals ages that are now regarded as being late Miocene.

Our concept of the genus Pliohippus has also shrunk. In essence, Pliohippus has been split into two genera. Pliohippus now includes horses with large facial depressions in front of their eyes. These lived during the Miocene. The second genus, Dinohippus, includes horses with smaller facial depressions which lived into the Pliocene. (Equus lacks these depressions.)

The shrinking of the Pliocene and Pliohippus has resulted in the unhappy complication that the namesake of the Pliocene did not live during this time period”…..Florida Museum of Natural History

Palestrina Mosaic -Smilodon?

Smilodon (IPA: /smailəʊdɑn/, a bahuvrihi from Greek: σμιλη “knife” and (Ionic) οδων “tooth”) is an extinct genus of large machairodontine saber-toothed cats that are understood to have lived between approximately 3 million to 10,000 years ago in North and South America. .

They are the only known successors to Machairodus. Smilodon means knife tooth, an entirely appropriate name given its enormous fangs. The smilodon species are also known as Saber-Toothed Cats or Saber-Toothed Tigers.

As many as six species of Smilodon are known to have existed:

  • Smilodon fatalis, 1.6 million-10,000 years ago
  • Smilodon gracilis, 2.5 million-500,000 years ago
  • Smilodon populator, 1 million-10,000 years ago
  • Smilodon neogaeus, 3 million-500,000 years ago
  • Smilodon floridus, may be a subspecies of Smilodon fatalis
  • Smilodon californicus, may be a subspecies of Smilodon fatalis.

A fully-grown Smilodon weighed approximately 200 kilograms (450 pounds) and had a short tail, powerful legs and a large head. About the size of a lion, smilodon was extremely powerful. Its jaws could open 120 degrees. Its fangs were about 17 cm (7 inches) long.

Many Smilodon fossils have been unearthed at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. The Smilodon is the prehistoric cat that researchers know the most about….Wiipedia