Archive of Articles
[stage_edit] =>
[body] =>
Skeptics ridicule many portions of Scripture and let's face it—some of them are difficult to believe. Certainly one that has received a major dose of such ridicule deals with Jonah and the whale (or great fish). How could a whale or fish swallow a man whole? How could a man survive in such an environment for any length of time? As always, there are answers to the questions if we are willing to study and believe.
First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." (I Corinthians 15:39).
Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.
Could a man survive in a fish’s belly? The Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" has been clearly shown both from Scripture and other sources to mean a period of time beginning on one day and ending on the day after the one following. It doesn't necessarily mean three full days and nights.
Furthermore, there have been several reported cases of modern sailors or other individuals swallowed by such an animal, only to be recovered many hours later.
But again, this story involves the miraculous. It may be that Jonah actually died and was resurrected by God. This is implied in his description of his experience especially Jonah 2:2. Of course, resurrection is "impossible" but it clearly happened on several occasions in Scripture requiring miraculous input. To deny the possibility of miracles, especially those miracles specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to deny the existence of God, and this is not an option for a Christian.
The point is nothing about the story is totally impossible: There are "fish" large enough to swallow a man; men have been known to survive inside a "fish"; the Bible says it really happened; Christ said Jonah’s experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is alive and capable of this feat.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
Skeptics ridicule many portions of Scripture and let's face it—some of them are difficult to believe. Certainly one that has received a major dose of such ridicule deals with Jonah and the whale (or great fish). How could a whale or fish swallow a man whole? How could a man survive in such an environment for any length of time? As always, there are answers to the questions if we are willing to study and believe.
First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." ( I Corinthians 15:39).
Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.
Could a man survive in a fish’s belly? The Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" has been clearly shown both from Scripture and other sources to mean a period of time beginning on one day and ending on the day after the one following. It doesn't necessarily mean three full days and nights.
Furthermore, there have been several reported cases of modern sailors or other individuals swallowed by such an animal, only to be recovered many hours later.
But again, this story involves the miraculous. It may be that Jonah actually died and was resurrected by God. This is implied in his description of his experience especially Jonah 2:2. Of course, resurrection is "impossible" but it clearly happened on several occasions in Scripture requiring miraculous input. To deny the possibility of miracles, especially those miracles specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to deny the existence of God, and this is not an option for a Christian.
The point is nothing about the story is totally impossible: There are "fish" large enough to swallow a man; men have been known to survive inside a "fish"; the Bible says it really happened; Christ said Jonah’s experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is alive and capable of this feat.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => did-jonah-really-get-swallowed-by-whale
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->
One of the most interesting passages in Genesis is that found in Genesis 10:25, where it mentions an individual named Peleg, and says, "in his days was the earth divided."
The word translated "divided" is used only a few times in the Old Testament, including a parallel passage in I Chronicles 1:19. Interestingly, the name Peleg is quite similar to the Hebrew word "divided" (Palag).
There have been many treatments of the verse. One suggests that "divided" implies "surveyed" as in divided into grids. Could the early post-Flood inhabitants have explored and mapped the new earth, so radically different from the pre-Flood earth? There are ancient maps and traditions of far-away continents.
Another deals with the possibility of continental separation. Geologists have marshaled much evidence that the continents were once together.
But while continental separation is well supported, it is still unproven, and very likely unprovable. Many competing concepts have been proposed in the geologic literature, and serious difficulties remain, the weightiest of which is the lack of a sufficient mechanism to move the continents. In fact, the most viable concepts are coming from young-earth creationists, employing the overall Flood scenario as the mechanism and timing for the separation. At least the destruction of the earth's surface at the time of the Flood has the potential to move continents!
But any scheme of rapid separation would itself cause havoc on the earth. If the Atlantic Ocean opened up rapidly, the destructive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes would make life impossible on earth.
For this reason, I am convinced that Genesis 10:25 should not be understood to imply that "In the days of Peleg the Atlantic Ocean opened up." This would have caused devastation comparable to Noah's Flood, and the Bible has no mention of it. If the continents separated, they did so during Noah's Flood.
The traditional interpretation relates Peleg's day to the division of language/family groups at the Tower of Babel. Comparing the lineage of Shem, which includes Peleg, to the lineage of Ham, which includes Nimrod, leader of the rebellion at Babel, we find it likely that Peleg was born soon after the dispersion (assuming the genealogies are complete). Thus it would have been reasonable for his father Eber to name a son in commemoration of this miraculous event.
One "separator" did occur sometime after the dispersion. The Ice Age, which followed the Flood, would have caused sea level to be an estimated 600 feet lower than today, since such a great volume of water was trapped as ice on the continents. Such a lowering of today's seas would reconnect the continents once again. The connected continents would have aided in both animal and human migration following both the Flood and the dispersion, as commanded by God (Genesis 8:17; 11:4,8,9). Then the ending of the Ice Age and the melting of the ice sheets would cause sea level to rise, covering the land bridges and "dividing" the continents after migration had occurred.
Perhaps this is what happened "in the days of Peleg."
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>One of the most interesting passages in Genesis is that found in Genesis 10:25, where it mentions an individual named Peleg, and says, "in his days was the earth divided."
The word translated "divided" is used only a few times in the Old Testament, including a parallel passage in I Chronicles 1:19. Interestingly, the name Peleg is quite similar to the Hebrew word "divided" (Palag).
There have been many treatments of the verse. One suggests that "divided" implies "surveyed" as in divided into grids. Could the early post-Flood inhabitants have explored and mapped the new earth, so radically different from the pre-Flood earth? There are ancient maps and traditions of far-away continents.
Another deals with the possibility of continental separation. Geologists have marshaled much evidence that the continents were once together.
But while continental separation is well supported, it is still unproven, and very likely unprovable. Many competing concepts have been proposed in the geologic literature, and serious difficulties remain, the weightiest of which is the lack of a sufficient mechanism to move the continents. In fact, the most viable concepts are coming from young-earth creationists, employing the overall Flood scenario as the mechanism and timing for the separation. At least the destruction of the earth's surface at the time of the Flood has the potential to move continents!
But any scheme of rapid separation would itself cause havoc on the earth. If the Atlantic Ocean opened up rapidly, the destructive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes would make life impossible on earth.
For this reason, I am convinced that Genesis 10:25 should not be understood to imply that "In the days of Peleg the Atlantic Ocean opened up." This would have caused devastation comparable to Noah's Flood, and the Bible has no mention of it. If the continents separated, they did so during Noah's Flood.
The traditional interpretation relates Peleg's day to the division of language/family groups at the Tower of Babel. Comparing the lineage of Shem, which includes Peleg, to the lineage of Ham, which includes Nimrod, leader of the rebellion at Babel, we find it likely that Peleg was born soon after the dispersion (assuming the genealogies are complete). Thus it would have been reasonable for his father Eber to name a son in commemoration of this miraculous event.
One "separator" did occur sometime after the dispersion. The Ice Age, which followed the Flood, would have caused sea level to be an estimated 600 feet lower than today, since such a great volume of water was trapped as ice on the continents. Such a lowering of today's seas would reconnect the continents once again. The connected continents would have aided in both animal and human migration following both the Flood and the dispersion, as commanded by God (Genesis 8:17; 11:4,8,9). Then the ending of the Ice Age and the melting of the ice sheets would cause sea level to rise, covering the land bridges and "dividing" the continents after migration had occurred.
Perhaps this is what happened "in the days of Peleg."
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => what-happened-days-peleg [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>
The blockbuster movie, "Jurassic Park," has captured the nation's fancy this summer, backed by an extensive media campaign. Central to the movie is the idea that mosquitoes, living in the Jurassic period (some 155 to 200 million years ago according to the evolutionist) were entombed in amber (fossilized tree resin) after having bitten dinosaurs. The dinosaur-blood DNA was so well preserved that scientists could clone living dinosaurs!
Is this a possible scenario? It must first be recognized that cloning successes have been realized only within living species. The best results reported are when the nucleus is removed from a female's egg cell, and the nucleus (which contains the DNA) from another type of cell of a different individual of the same species is substituted. On occasion, the embryo grows, following normal development, but frequently the offspring is badly malformed. Among the requirements for success is that the egg and the substituted DNA be from the same species, and that the growth must occur within an egg cell.
Advances in this field have been spectacular, and much research is still going on. Breakthroughs are perhaps forthcoming which will produce more significant results, but as of yet, cloning of large animals remains science fiction.
The next question to be addressed, Is it possible for DNA to be preserved for a long period of time? Some recent discoveries do hint of this. Fossilized leaves and trees have been found which contain remnants of DNA, and tiny remnants of DNA from insects trapped in amber have been extracted, but the entire DNA sequence has never been observed in fossils.
Recent laboratory studies (Nature, vol. 352, 1 August 1991, p. 381) have shown that DNA will break down all by itself. Without the repair mechanism of a living cell, it self-destructs at a rapid rate. Under even the most favorable conditions, it could not remain beyond 10,000 years or so (at least this is what true scientific observations show, as opposed to scientific speculations or science fiction).
The last question: How old are these fossils, and how old is the "dinosaur blood?" The fossil leaves, trees, and insects are thought to be millions of years old, and pose a dilemma for science. The preservation of DNA for so long goes against the observed and measured DNA-breakdown rate. And dinosaurs? All scientists whose articles I have read have agreed that the idea of dinosaur DNA remaining intact in a complete-enough state for cloning will always remain a fairy tale. No advances in technology are likely ever to bridge that gap.
The creation/flood/young-earth model involves a different set of parameters. In this model, the fossils aren't so old, and were rapidly buried—conditions optimum for preservation. Even post-flood fossils aren't so old, but complete DNA molecules would still be extremely unlikely.
So, in order to clone dinosaurs, we need perfectly preserved and complete dinosaur DNA (which we don't have), and a living mother dinosaur to provide the living egg cell (which we also don't have and aren't going to have). The point is, don't lose any sleep over cloned dinosaurs!
You might be more concerned with the scientific community. How long will they continue to allow Hollywood to use fairytale just to promote evolution?
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => could-dinosaurs-be-cloned [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Each year ICR sponsors a tour called "Grand Canyon Adventure." After an opening seminar in Phoenix and "mini-lectures" on the Canyon rim, a number of us joined a regularly scheduled nature walk and lecture along the rim, led by a very nice young ranger. The story he told about the formation of the Canyon was predictable, with a few minor variations. But we had already given lectures on this subject, explaining the weaknesses in the traditional "story."
To the group's amazement, the ranger did not seem to understand even what he was saying! He said that radiometric dating can be used to date the limestone layers; that off-shore deposits can be uplifted out of water over millions of years with no erosion and that the fossils in the Canyon show a clear progression of evolution from bottom to top. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand the weaknesses in his story, nor did the rest of the crowd of tourists standing around.
From time to time he asked for a response, and someone would attempt to parrot back what they had been taught in class or learned from tourist brochures or PBS specials. Especially one young boy, around 10 years of age. Obviously bright and interested in science, his misconceptions understandably were significant, but all those around complimented and encouraged him for being able to rephrase what he had been told. If a ranger, scientist, teacher, documentary, or newspaper tells it, it must be true. Memorize and repeat!
I remember a prior Grand Canyon trip—this time on a hiking trail. One of the participants was an older lady who, in her younger years, had been a ranger at Grand Canyon. She had been taught the "story" and how to teach it. She knew how to wave her arms and talk of millions and billions of years. She revealed that she and the other ranger/story-tellers viewed their public lectures as entertainment. Tourists come to the Canyon fully expecting to be entertained and awed with talk of vast time, and slow processes, and big words they don't understand—all part of the wonder of national parks. The rangers may not know or believe the story, but people expect it.
But this dear lady, a ranger at the time, through the witness of some Christian friends, had come to know the Lord as her personal Savior one night on the rim. Nobody talked about the Canyon, or creation, or her job, but the next morning when she went out to "tell the story," somehow she knew it wasn't true. The words simply wouldn't come. Within a few weeks she had resigned from the Park Service and ever since had been searching for answers. How precious to see her 30-year-old questions answered, satisfying both mind and spirit.
The story rangers tell today has changed somewhat. They take seminars in how to deflect difficult questions from creationists and Christians. And lately the story includes the evils of "man" and the "deification" of nature. The "story" still contains bad science, but uses the opportunity to teach borderline pantheism—another story rangers are taught and which people expect to hear.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => do-park-rangers-tell-credible-story [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories.
On Day Five (Genesis 1:20-23) God created marine life and flying animals, but animals such as the plesiosaur and flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs. However, the Bible does mention "great whales" (v. 21) literally "great sea monsters" or "great dragons." Such terms bring up images of beasts reminiscent of modern re-constructions of dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles.
Day Six saw land animals created (vs. 24-31). Since dinosaurs were land creatures of a variety of sizes and habits, they would be included among the various "kinds" of "living creatures": the "cattle" or domesticated animals; the "creeping things" or small animals; and the "beasts of the earth", the large animals. They were of necessity air-breathing and land-dwelling.
At first, everything was "very good" (v. 31), but soon sin entered, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3) and, eventually, Noah's Flood (Genesis 6-9). Noah was told to take on board the Ark two of each kind of created animal "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (7:22), including, no doubt, dinosaurs.
Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.
In fact, "dragon legends" are best understood as the faded and/or embellished memories of real human encounters with dragons. Sober historians from Herodotus to Marco Polo to Alexander the Great and many others appear to be relating such encounters, and their descriptions of these beasts sound like dinosaurs. Likewise, American-indian stories of the "thunderbird" sound like a giant flying reptile, and some of their cave drawings resemble dinosaurs.
The barest possibility exists that some land dinosaurs could still be alive, as reported by certain rain-forest inhabitants, but more likely they are all extinct.
There is much we don't know about dinosaurs, but the evidence fits the Biblical model well. Evolutionists, however, have difficulty explaining away dragon legends, cave drawings, and even modern "sightings." Furthermore, they can't explain either their demise or their evolution. The "just-so" stories they tell are inferior to a reconstruction of the past based on the Bible.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => did-dinosaurs-survive-flood [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>We often state that Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture, and without a good foundation the rest won't make much sense. Unfortunately, Christians are typically poorly taught in these concepts, and thus have difficulty in formulating and implementing the Biblical world view as it relates to society as well as doctrines built on creation.
But how about scientific research? Can we do better science and understand the past better by going "Back to Genesis"? Before answering, let me point out several truisms regarding science. First, we can never have all the pertinent data. The data we do have exist in the present, and are studied in the present via the scientific method. When dealing with creation and/or evolution, we are attempting to reconstruct past events by interpreting evidence, which exists in the present, the results of past events, which were not observed and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the interpretation of any set of facts relies, to a great extent, on one's view of the past held before studying the present data. And finally, proving any view of the past is quite impossible. We can, however, compare competing views.
If one holds to a naturalistic worldview, that person will interpret all data within that scheme. Data alone cannot force a change of perspective. But if one holds that the supernatural events given in Scripture really occurred, (i.e., Creation, Fall, Flood, miracles, etc.) then the present data will be interpreted within that model.
The Flood of Noah's day, if it happened the way the Bible says, would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils). In order to fully understand the rocks and fossils, we must first recognize this.
When we do, we will be able to make "predications" about the geologic data. Since the Flood was a catastrophic event, we ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.
And that's exactly what we do see. In fact, almost all geologists have adopted a much more catastrophic stance in recent years, proposing interpretations as turbidities, basal conglomerates, etc. Individual beds are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale, not local, like modern deposits. Erosion in the past, producing large river valleys, peneplains, and incised meanders was quite different from modern erosion, which accomplishes comparatively little. Almost all mountain chains and volcanic episodes occurred more recently than the major depositional episodes.
We can't prove Noah's Flood scientifically, but we can show that the evidence, properly interpreted, points to a global, catastrophic event like Noah's Flood. The evidence is compatible with Biblical history. It is exactly as it should be, if the Bible is true.
By going "Back to Genesis," we can make sense of the geologic evidence. Conversely, if one denies the Flood as history, the evidence is difficult to interpret. The Biblical framework works in science, and strengthens our faith in God and His Word.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-science-go-back-genesis [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->