In the Beginning: Science and Genesis 1-11
Class Thirteen - Dinosaurs and Man
So in summary, we have PP
the fossil embarrassment at-a-glance…PP Fossils are supposed to show gradual, step-by-step change. Yet…PP Over 200,000 species have been dug up, and it’s now clear: fossils do not document gradualism. PP Fossil evidence fits perfectly with the idea of separate creation of basic “kinds” as seen in Genesis 1:24-25. I mentioned before that I don’t spend time on the supposed fossil links between apes and humans. I don’t do that because if it is impossible for one organism to generate a new organism on the microbiological level, and it is as we have seen, then those links are also impossible. I have for sale a DVD, PP
Apes and Human Fossils, on that subject should you be interested in further information.
We’ve seen a lot of fossils, but one we haven’t seen is a human fossil. Why don’t we find numerous human fossils in the fossil record?
The great majority of fossils are invertebrate (no backbones) sea creatures, with vertebrate fossils (backbones) very rare and human fossils even rarer. For example, if there were 10 million people at the time of the flood, and every one of the bodies fossilized and uniformly spread throughout the estimated 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock, only one fossil would be located in each 70 cubic kilometers of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil!
But we did see trilobite fossils. They are supposedly simple fossils and therefore are dated near the bottom of the geologic column. Man is dated at the top of the geologic column. Yet, in 1968, the PP
fossilized sandaled footprint of a man was discovered. While that is interesting, what was found inside on of the sandals is even more interesting. PP He was stepping on a trilobite! In a subsequent news conference, the curator of the Museum of Earth Science at the University of Utah, James Madsen, said: PP
“There were no men 600 million years ago. Neither were there monkeys or bears or ground sloths to make pseudo-human tracks. What man-thing could possibly have been walking about on this planet before vertebrates even evolved?”
His reference to 600 million years was the then estimate of the age of the Cambrian layer, which has since been reduced to 540 million years, and we know its actually around 4,500 years ago. Madsen then went on to say that the fossil must have been formed by a natural process, though of what kind he was unable to suggest, yet what we clearly see there is a trilobite fossil. Yet his evolutionized mind refused to see it as it is because trilobites, according to the geologic column, became extinct about 230 million years before the appearance of man! Additional evidence was found to support the common age of trilobites and man when a geologist found the fossilized footprints of a child; one contained a compressed trilobite.
As we leave the fossil record, I do want to address one related subject that fascinates most people. Did dinosaurs live common with man? We’ve already seen irrefutable evidence in this class of man and dinosaurs living together and that dinosaurs, along with everything else, were vegetarians before the Flood despite the fierce appearance PP, ,
for example, of Tyrannosaurus Rex. Let’s look at some other evidence of the young age of Dinosaurs and how researchers deal with such “uncomfortable” evidence relative to their worldview. This PP
is a picture of red blood cells found in dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old, and here PP
is a picture of tissue found in dino bones that still show elasticity. The comment of the researcher is very revealing: PP
“In the hotly contested field of dino research, the work will be greeted with acclaim and disbelief in equal measure. What seems certain is that some fairly remarkable conditions must have existed at the Montana site where the T. rex died, 68 million years ago.” Their worldview precludes them from considering for a moment that the evidence strongly indicates T. rex was very young rather than very old as such biological evidence will exist for only thousands of years under the best of circumstances.
October 2009 article in Acts & Facts magazine titled Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? reveals what often happens when evidence contradicts the evolutionary world view. Here are a few quotes: PP
“Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University’s
Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar
structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But
blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. PP
“I got goose bumps,” recalls Schweitzer. “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?”
The article then observes: PP
“However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago. The existence of
65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the
academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular
The article then discusses the research flowchart set forth in the article, which indicates that any dinosaur purported DNA discovery that was at odds with the assumed dino ancestry of birds or crocodiles is automatically deemed to be an anomaly or contaminated! In other words, if your research finds evidence contrary to our assumptions we don’t want to hear about it!
Is there further strong evidence of dinosaur/man commonality? Let’s look at several slides to see where the evidence leads.
We’ll start with the Delk Print PPx2
that clearly shows a dinosaur stepping onto the edge of a human footprint, indicating the human was there first. This print was discovered in north Texas in 2001 and not revealed until 2008. The delay was to perform the tests such as you see here PP
demonstrating the pressure beneath the prints. While someone could probably fake the prints in stone, they would not be able to fake the pressure indications in the rock. Absent this test this print would certainly be dismissed by the evolutionists as a fake. Now they simply ignore it. Next PP
we have human and dinosaur tracks crossing each other in a river bed. Note near the top of the slide the remnants of the rock layer that was peeled back to reveal these prints.
We are now about to go back more than five hundred years in man’s history. Keep in mind that the first dinosaur bone was uncovered in the late 1700s and the term “dinosaur” was not coined until the early 1800s. It was after those discoveries that the fleshing out of those fossils into the shapes we are familiar with today occurred.
This is part of one the magnificent jungle temples of Cambodia that were produced by the Khmer civilization, beginning as early as the eighth and extending through the fourteenth century A.D. A closer look PP
shows a reasonable likeness of a PP
Stegosaurus. This carving PP
is on a structure dedicated PP in 1186, long before the discovery of their remains. This clearly implies the carver knew what a Stegosaurus looked like.
Let’s move to caves in the Mid-West and look at drawings on the cave walls made hundreds of years ago by cave dwellers. PP
This drawing appears to show a bird and a reptile. Here PP
are artist renderings of the bird. It certainly looks like a PP
Pterodactyl or perhaps PP
a Rhamphorhynchus. I wonder how they knew what these they looked like, unless they saw them?
cave drawing is being PPx2
traced and clearly resembles PP
a Sauropod dinosaur. I wonder how they knew what one looked like unless they had seen one?
Take a good look PP
at this egg-shaped stone from China believed to be more than a thousand years old. Notice the two dinosaurs that strongly resemble either PP
an Oviraptor or PP
Tyrannosaurus Rex. And the one on the bottom PP
bears a strong resemblance to a PP
Triceratops. Isn’t it coincidental that they were so accurate in their imaginations – or perhaps they really saw them.
That ends our review of the fossil record. It clearly supports the Biblical record and contradicts the evolution creation story.
Our last segment of this course is Genesis 9:18-19 PP:
“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.” We’ve seen that man was dispersed PP
from Babel by the confusion of language. Here we are focused on the latter part of verse 19: PP
“These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.”
This is certainly an excellent test of the Biblical and evolution models. We now have over six billion people on this planet. Did it take tens of thousands of years to attain that population, or could six billion people be generate in just a few thousand years?
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.
After 32 doublings, PP
which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.
So from two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion PP.
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for just PP
50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is PP
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe, which is 10 to the 80th power! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.
Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.
With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.