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.
This PPx4
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
media
channels.”
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.
PP
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?
This PP
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
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
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.