|Previous Page | Home Page |

Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California

Last update: 5 March 2002

This represents the beginnings of an attempt to respond to questions that are frequently asked by those interested in creation. Your comments are solicited in order to develop this material into a more useful resource. Suggestions are most easily preserved if they are written. You can also e-mail them to: jgibson@univ.llu.edu

A few references are provided. They are not intended to be comprehensive, but only to provide a place to check on the points made here. They may also serve as a starting point for those wishing to study the topic in greater detail.

Contents:

To return to your previous site --- use the "back" button in your browser.

__________________________________________________________________

Last Update: 5 March 2002

1. Did dinosaurs exist?¹

Yes. About 285 types (genera) are known,² ranging in size from a crow to 30 m (100 ft) or more in length. Nearly half of these are represented by only a single specimen, while ten of them are known from at least 40 specimens. The greatest diversity of dinosaurs is found in the uppermost Cretaceous rocks (Maastrichtian).

2. Are human and dinosaur footprints found together?

No. There was a claim that they were found together in the riverbed of the Paluxy River of Texas, but this claim seems to have been abandoned by all scientifically trained creationists. The dinosaur footprints are genuine, but the human footprints are not.³

3. Do scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

This is currently a hotly debated question. Certain fossils have been found with some traits typical of birds and other traits more typical of dinosaurs.⁴ Archaeopteryx is a famous example. Some fossil dinosaurs recently discovered in China have filament-like traces that some scientists claim are evidence of feathers, but the structures do not look like ordinary flight feathers, and the matter is presently unresolved. Some scientists have presented evidence to argue that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.⁵ A few scientists have proposed that birds evolved from a different group of reptiles, not from dinosaurs.⁶

From a creationist viewpoint, the presence of feathers on a dinosaur would not mean that birds must be related to dinosaurs. All birds have feathers, but this does not mean that all birds evolved from a single common ancestor. There may have been many separately created groups of birds and other feathered organisms.

4. What did dinosaurs eat?

Most dinosaurs apparently were herbivores. Some may have eaten small animals if they were available. Some ate fish, while others probably ate larger animals, such as other dinosaurs.⁷

5. Were dinosaurs warm-blooded?

Scientists disagree on the answer to this question. Dinosaurs were probably not warm-blooded in the sense that birds and mammals are warm-blooded. They may have lived in warm humid climates, which would mean they had no difficulty staying warm. The large-bodied forms would have conserved heat more efficiently than the small-bodied forms. Their metabolisms may have been more rapid than the reptiles living today.⁸

6. Did God create the dinosaurs, or are they the result of evil?

God created all life, including the ancestors of the dinosaurs. However, we do not know how much the animals might have changed after the creation. We cannot identify any fossil as being an originally created individual or form. The only fossils we have are of animals that lived after sin had already affected the original creation. We do not know what the original created forms looked like.

7. Were there any dinosaurs on the ark?

No one knows the answer to this question. There is no evidence they were on the ark, and no evidence they existed after the flood. As far as we can tell, it appears they were destroyed during the flood. Occasional reports have been made of supposed dinosaurs living in Scotland, Zaire or the ocean. None of these has been verified, and all such reports appear to be false. Some creationists have interpreted biblical references to leviathan or behemoth as references to dinosaurs, but this is pure speculation, and these names could just as well have referred to some other large animals, such as crocodiles, whales, hippos, etc.

8. What unsolved problems about dinosaurs are of greatest concern?

How do we explain what appear to be nests of dinosaur eggs and babies in sediments we think were probably deposited by the flood?⁹ Why don't we find fossils of dinosaurs mixed with fossils of living types of mammals? How could man survive with such powerful animals around?

__________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Were there really cave men?

Yes. There were humans who lived in caves, and there may be some who still do. This does not mean they were similar to the cartoon figures you may have seen. Cro-Magnon man could be thought of as a cave man because he is believed responsible for some remarkable paintings in caves in France and nearby areas. Cro-Magnon man is essentially the same as modern Europeans, and may represent prehistoric Europeans.¹

2. Are there really fossils that look like ape-men?

Fossils have been found that appear to have a mixture of human and ape-like traits. There are several different types of these, such as Java Man, Peking Man, and several types from Africa known as the "erectines." These appear to have been human, but of somewhat different form. For creationist and evolutionist interpretations of these fossils, see the references.²

3. Were Neanderthals true humans?

Most creationists believe so, but the question is controversial.³ Neanderthal man probably lived in caves, but they were not ape-men. The skull was shaped differently from most modern humans, but the brain space was larger. They apparently had culture, and were probably highly intelligent. Neanderthals had some unique traits, but not that would link them to apes in any particular way. Some of the differences in their skulls may have been partially produced by responses to harsh climate and food that was very tough to chew. They apparently were more powerfully built than people living today.⁴ Recent sequencing of mitrochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal bone indicates that Neanderthal DNA is significantly different from that of living humans.⁵ However, this does not mean they were not true humans, and many paleoanthropologists accept them as humans with adaptations for cold weather and harsh living conditions.⁶

4. What are "archaic" human fossils?

There is a group of skeletal material that does not easily fit in any of the other categories, and are typically referred to as "archaic Homo sapiens." They generally have heavy brow ridges, like "erectines" and "archaic" humans. They have a bigger brain space than the erectines, and lack the inflated "bun" at the back of the skull that Neanderthals have.⁷

5. What about Australopithecus?

Australopithecus was probably an extinct type of ape.⁸ They had many similarities with humans, but had a chimp-sized brain, and some features that suggest they lived in trees. They apparently could walk upright, but there is some evidence they may have had some difficulty doing so.⁹

6. Is there an evolutionary sequence leading from apes to humans?

There are several types of fossils that have mixtures of human-like traits and ape-like traits. Attempts have been made to arrange them in a sequence from fewer to greater numbers of human-like traits. Australopithecines have the fewest human-like traits, followed by the "erectines," the "archaic" group, and then Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. The sequence appears convincing to many people, and is interpreted as an evolutionary lineage.¹⁰ Creationists do not accept this interpretation, pointing out that the details do not fit quite right, and the series is not truly ancestor-descendant.¹¹

6. What is a creationist explanation for these fossils that have a mixture of human and ape-like traits?

The answer to this question is lost in antiquity. The fossils referred to are primarily the "erectines" and the "australopithecines."

Here is a possible answer: The erectines appear to have been human. Perhaps they suffered the effects of severe inbreeding and poor lifestyle. The australopithecines may have been an extinct type of ape. They appear to be unrelated to any species living today.

7. What about the giant humans that lived before the flood? Have any been found?

We have not found any fossils of giant humans that lived before the flood.

8. How did the races of humans originate? Are some of them marked by a curse?

All humans are living under the curse of sin, and it is doubtful that this applies to any one race more than others.

Races may develop when small groups are isolated. Aside from distance, language is probably the greatest isolating factor. When the languages were confused at Babel, it is likely that small groups dispersed to various places, producing isolated groups that developed into different races.

Some racial features may be the result of the fact that certain physiological features are advantageous in particular environments. Skin color is one example. Sunlight is needed in order to produce vitamin D. Too much sunlight increases the risk of skin cancer. Melanin protects those who live in tropical climates from skin cancer caused by excessive sunlight. This explains why tropical peoples typically have darker skin. People from northern latitudes do not need so much protection from the sun, and have lighter skin. Dark skin might be disadvantageous in the north if the amount of sunlight is barely sufficient for production of vitamin D.

9. What unsolved problems about fossil humans are of greatest concern?

Why do we not find fossils of giant humans? Why do we not find any human fossils that appear to have been buried by the Flood? What is the explanation for the fossils with mixtures of ape-like and human-like characteristics?

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last Update: 5 March 2002

1. What are the "Genesis kinds?"

The Bible does not say anything about "Genesis kinds." It uses the term "according to their kind" to describe the variety of plants and animals that God created (Genesis 1), or that were saved in the ark (Genesis 6:20), or that were clean or unclean to eat (Leviticus 11). Many creationists have held the tradition that God commanded the animals to reproduce only "after their kind," but a study of the text shows that reproduction is not the subject being discussed. The Bible gives no rule about animals reproducing after their kind. The term "Genesis kinds" was created by creationists to refer to the idea that God originally created many separate groups of interbreeding individuals from which have sprung the diversity of plants and animals living today.¹ Thus the term "lineage" could be used in place of "kind," with the understanding that there may be considerable genetic flexibility within any given lineage.

2. How do we account for predators and poisonous creatures?

The Bible does not say how such things originated, but it does say that nature changed because of Adam's sin (Genesis 3:14, 18; Romans 8:20). Apparently Adam was created to be one of the "sons of God" (Luke 3:38; Job 1:6). By his sin, Adam forfeited control of the world to Satan (John 12:31; Job 1:6,7; Job 2:1,2). Thus, the evil we see in nature is the responsibility of Satan. When the world is restored, harmony in nature will be restored (Isaiah 11:6-9; Isaiah 65:25; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3).

3. Aren't there limits to how much species can change?

The Bible does not address this point, but science shows that variation is limited. We do not have a system for quantifying morphological differences among species, so the limits cannot be quantified. However, thousands of experiments have been conducted by breeders and geneticists, and much information has been gained. Species have a great capacity for variation (e.g., variation among breeds of dogs is equivalent to that seen among different genera of wild canids²) and can produce new varieties and species; but it appears implausible that this kind of variation can add up to the production of new organs or new body plans. On the other hand, the existence of predators and parasites suggests that some species have undergone a considerable amount of change. The mechanism of this change has not been fully demonstrated.³

4. What is the taxonomic unit that is closest to the originally created unit?

There is no general answer — different groups have different traits that are often not comparable. Taxonomic units, such as genus, family, order, etc. are subjectively defined, and there is no biblical statement concerning them. There is no quantitative measure that could serve to define morphological differences among species. Are two families of insects as similar to each other as two families of reptiles or two families of algae?⁴ Who can say? If one wants an estimate, the family may be a good approximation for some groups, but not all.

5. Can species change rapidly enough to account for present biodiversity in a relatively short time?

We do not know how much change is required to explain present biodiversity, because we do not know the starting point. Scientists have learned that species can change very rapidly,⁵ especially during periods of environmental stress. Most observed changes are minor, such as might distinguish species or genera. These changes were driven by natural processes. If changes have been driven by intelligent agents, the results are difficult to predict.

6. How do we explain the genetic and molecular similarities of humans and chimpanzees?

We do not know exactly how DNA molecules make bodies, but it seems clear there is a relationship between the DNA sequences and body form and function. If so, then similar bodies can be expected to have similar DNA sequences. Thus, one would expect humans and chimps to have greater similarity than humans and pine trees, for example. However, the similarities between humans and chimps are striking, and it is understandable that evolutionists would explain them as the result of common ancestry.⁶ In fact, the similarities are so great that one wonders why the two species are so different. What makes them different? We don't know. Unless we learn how differences among species are produced, we probably will not understand the meaning of the similarities between humans and chimps.

7. What unsolved problems about change in species are of greatest concern?

What did the originally created animals and plants look like? Why are humans so similar to other animals, especially the apes?

__________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Have scientists created life?

No. Scientists can produce some of the simpler chemicals of living cells, but they cannot combine them to produce a living cell. We do not possess the technology to do this, and probably never will. Scientists cannot even bring life back to a dead cell, even though the needed systems and chemicals are still present.

2. Could life begin by chance in a "primordial soup"?

No. Life depends on too many non-equilibrium chemical reactions. Proteins and nucleic acids are not produced in the absence of life. Life is based on chemical disequilibrium, but chemical reactions in nature spontaneously run to equilibrium. Further, there is no geological evidence that there ever was a "primordial soup."¹

3. What about the reports of life on Mars?

Life has not been found on Mars. The reports of possible life on Mars were based on certain minerals found on an Antarctic meteorite.² The meteorite is believed to have come from Mars, and a few scientists hypothesized that the minerals might have been made by bacteria while the rock was still on Mars. The meteorite may have been blasted into space when an asteriod or similar object struck Mars. After some time, it struck Earth and was found by scientists. The claim that the meteorite had features produced by living organisms has been rejected by most scientists,³ although the search continues for evidence of life on Mars.⁴

4. How have developments in chaos and complexity theories affected our understanding of the origin of life problem?

They have not produced any breakthroughs. Complexity theory has generated a great deal of discussion and speculation, but these have not changed the nature of the problem. Most of the work has been done with computer programs, which have not revealed anything about the origins of proteins, nucleic acids, or living cells.⁵

5. Evaluate the theory that life began on mineral or clay surfaces in the ocean, perhaps around hydrothermal vents.

Different conjectures have been proposed regarding the development of life on clay or mineral surfaces. However, these lack empirical support, and there is no significant experimental evidence to evaluate.⁶ Hydrothermal vents present a serious problem for all such theories, because water passing through these vents is sterilized, destroying any life that might be present.⁷ Most of the chemicals necessary for life are very sensitive to heat.

6. What unsolved problems about the origin of life are of greatest concern?

The scientific data regarding the origin of life is consistent with the creationist theory that life is the result of intelligent design. Naturally, all students of nature would like to know more about how life operates.

__________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Explain how scientists get dates of millions of years from carbon-14 dating.

They don't. Carbon-14 dating cannot measure ages beyond about 70,000 years. Dates of millions of years are based on other inorganic methods, such as potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating.

2. How does carbon-14 dating work?

Carbon-14 (C-14) dating is based on the fact that C-14 is radioactive and disintegrates to nitrogen-14. Living organisms take in C-14 through their food and water, maintaining a constant level of C-14 in their bodies. When they die, the C-14 that disintegrates is no longer replaced, so the level of C-14 declines. The longer the time since death, the less C-14 remains in the body. Scientists can measure with a high degree of accuracy the concentration of C-14 in a sample, and compare it to the amount of nonradioactive carbon-12. From this measurement, scientists can calculate how long it would take for the C-14 in the body to decline to this level. This is the C-14 age of the sample.¹

3. How accurate is carbon-14 dating?

Carbon-14 (C-14) dates appears to be accurate whenever they can be checked against historical records. Some exceptions are known, such as when organisms do not take in ordinary amounts of C-14, but these are often easily explained. Beyond about 1500 B.C., historical records are few, and tree-ring counts may be used to calibrate and correct C-14 dates.²

The experimental part of C-14 dating consists of measuring the amounts of carbon-14 and carbon-12, and sometimes C-13, in a sample. This can be done very accurately, although some samples may be difficult to work with. Beyond this, the accuracy of the date depends on the reliability of the assumptions used in interpreting the measurements.

4. What are the assumptions used in determining carbon-14 dates?

Interpretation of the results is based on several assumptions. The constant decay rate assumption states that the rate of disintegration of carbon-14 (C-14) has not changed. There is no evidence against this assumption, and it appears to be reliable. The closed system assumption states that there is no loss or contamination of C-14 in the sample. The reliability of this assumption probably depends on the environment around the sample. A sample that is sealed from the surrounding environment is more likely to avoid contamination or loss than one from a stream bed. Errors in this assumption can frequently be identified.

Three additional assumptions are made in applying the method.³ First, the rate of carbon-14 production must have been relatively constant. It is known that variations have occurred, but it is thought they can be corrected for. Second, the amounts of carbon-14 present in the geophysical reservoirs must be constant. The geophysical reservoirs include the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere, and the sediments. This assumption has been questioned recently.⁴ Third, the various rates of flow of carbon-14 among the respective geophysical reservoirs must be constant, and the residence time of carbon-14 in the various reservoirs must be short relative to its half-life. If these three conditions are met, the result is that the initial concentration of C-14 in the sample can be estimated. This result seems to work well where it can be checked. However, it would be completely invalidated for material that was alive before the Genesis flood.

The flood would drastically change the concentration of C-14. This is because the pre-flood C-14 would be greatly diluted by large amounts of C-12 which are now buried in coal and oil.⁵ This would greatly reduce the concentration of C-14 before the flood, making the sample appear much older than it really is. According to this interpretation, if plants living before the flood were C-14 dated using today's standard, they would appear to be very ancient even while alive. This means that those who believe in a worldwide flood would expect to see very old dates for material that was alive before the flood. The same would apply to plants and animals that lived shortly after the flood, before the new C-14 concentration level was established.

__________

_________________________________________________________________

Last update 5 March 2002

Most scientists believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000) years old. This figure is based on radiometric dating. Many creationists believe the Earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This figure is based on the chronologies in Genesis. Some creationists believe that this question is not very important; perhaps the minerals were created at one time and life was created at a different time. The Bible does not give an age for the Earth, nor is any theological point drawn from the age of the Earth, so it may not be as important as some of the other issues.

2. Why do scientists think the Earth is billions of years old?

These dates are the result of radiometric dating techniques that are applied to the rocks. The most popular of these methods is probably the potassium-argon method, although there are several others, such as uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, etc.¹ Some potassium atoms are radioactive and change into argon, an inert gas. The radioactive material (potassium-40) is known as the parent material; the product (argon-40) is known as the daughter material. As time passes, the amount of parent material (potassium-40) decreases while the amount of daughter material (argon-40) increases.

Potassium-argon dates are calculated from the ratio of daughter to parent material. This ratio gets larger and larger over time. If the amount of parent material becomes too small to detect, that method can no longer be used to calculate the age of a rock. The amounts of potassium-40 and argon-40 can be measured very precisely, but the accuracy of the date depends on the reliability of three major assumptions: constant rate; closed system; and initial concentration. The constant rate of decay hypothesis seems valid; there is little observational evidence against it. The closed system hypothesis is valid most of the time (the method is not applied to rocks that obviously have been chemically altered), but there is need for caution here. The initial concentration hypothesis is the weakest part of the process of calculating radiometric dates. Attempts are made to estimate the initial concentrations as reasonably as possible, but there is no way to be certain the estimates are correct. One cannot go back in time and examine the rock sample when it was first formed. Recent creationists suspect there are problems with the closed system hypothesis as well as the initial concentration hypothesis.

3. What does half-life mean?

Half-life refers to the period of time required for one-half a sample of parent material to change into daughter material. For potassium-40, the half-life has been determined to be about 1.3 billion years. This means that if one started with 1000 atoms of potassium-40, 500 of them would change into argon-40 in 1.3 billion years. After another 1.3 billion years, only 250 atoms would remain, while there would be 750 atoms of argon-40. A third half-life would reduce the potassium-40 to 125 atoms, with 875 atoms of argon-40. At this point, the ratio of one part potassium-40 to 7 parts of argon-40 would indicate an age of about 3.9 billion years, which is close to the age of the "oldest" known rocks on Earth.

4. How can creationists explain radiometric dates of many millions of years?

Creationists do not have an adequate explanation. Some possibilities have been proposed,² but they are not compelling because they do not explain why the lower layers generally give older dates than the upper layers. The first possibility is that the rocks of the earth are very old because the planet was created long before life was placed on it. This theory proposes that Genesis refers only to the creation of life on the planet, and not to the creation of the planet itself. This can be called the two-stage creation hypothesis. The second possibility is that God created a mature planet, with mature trees, mature animals, and mature humans. Therefore, it is reasonable that He would create rocks that appear mature also. This is known as the mature-earth creation hypothesis. A third possibility is that there is some functional reason that certain radioactive materials should not be present, such as their harmful effects on living organisms.

5. What unsolved problems about the age of the Earth are of greatest concern?

The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers. Other questions include why radiometric dating systematically gives ages that are much older than suggested by the biblical record; an explanation for traces of activity in the geologic column; and an explanation for the long series of layers in ice cores.

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. What was created on the first day of creation week?

God said, "Let there be light." (Genesis 1:3). The Earth had previously been dark (Genesis 1:2). On the first day, God caused Earth to be lighted. This does not mean that light had not existed prior to this time, because God's presence is associated with light (Revelation 22:5). It is not necessary to suppose that the physical phenomenon of light was first created at that time, but the previously dark Earth was lightened. One possible explanation of the light is that God personally and physically came to Earth, causing it to be lightened. If so, then how could it become dark (evening) again? Perhaps the rotation of Earth produced day and night in different portions of Earth, as it does today.

Another possible explanation of the light is that the sun and solar system actually existed before creation week, but the light was obscured so that Earth's surface was dark. Earth at that time might be compared with Venus, where the thick atmosphere obscures the sun's light. On the first day, the atmosphere was cleared sufficiently to permit light to reach the Earth's surface.¹

A third possibility is that light may have become available from another source, such as a supernova.

2. What was created on the fourth day of creation week?

God said "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night...." Two great lights are described, one to rule the day and one to rule the night. These lights appeared on the fourth day of creation week. The details are not given. They may have been created on that day. If so, the light of the first three days might have been provided by God's presence.

If our solar system existed before the creation week, as some creationists think is probable, then apparently the sun itself was not visible until the fourth day. This might be explained as due to atmospheric cloud cover, permitting diffuse light to reach the surface, but not revealing the source of that light. On the fourth day, perhaps the atmosphere was cleared to permit the sun and moon to be seen for the first time.

Another possible interpretation is that the sun and moon existed prior to that time, but on the fourth day they were "appointed" to specific functions relative to the Earth.

The phrase, "he made the stars also" does not require that God created the stars ex nihilo on the fourth day of creation. Some creationists have held that the entire universe, or at least the visible portion, was created on the fourth day. The text permits this reading, but does not require it. "The stars also" is merely a parenthetical phrase in which God is identified as the creator of the stars without identifying when this was accomplished. The text appears to permit the interpretation that the stars were already in existence, perhaps with planets inhabited by other created intelligences.²

The sequence of creation according to Genesis included the following: 1) land plants, including fruit-bearing trees; 2) flying creatures (such as birds) and swimming creatures (such as fish and whales); 3) land creatures (such as reptiles, mammals and humans). In the fossil record, the sequence is rearranged to: 1) fish; 2) land reptiles; 3) flying reptiles; 4) land mammals; 5) birds; 6) fruit-bearing trees; 7) whales; 8) humans. The fossil sequence does not match the creation sequence, because the fossil record is a record of death rather than a record of the creation of life. The fossil record was produced after the creation week. There was no procses of fossilization between the days of creation.

4. Could the days of creation actually represent periods of a thousand years each, as suggested in 2 Peter 3:8?

Making the creation "days" equal to a thousand years each does not help explain the text. The fossil sequence does not match the creation sequence. Vegetation is created before marine creatures, but appears after it in the fossil record. Birds are created before reptiles, but appear after them in the fossil record.

If the thousand years are thought of as having a single evening and morning, each evening must have occupied approximately half of that time, or 500 years. Vegetation could not survive 500 years of darkness. If the thousand years are thought of as ordinary years, this does not resolve the supposed ages of the fossils, which are thought to be millions of years old. Any attempt to make the creation "days" equal to a thousand years accomplishes nothing to resolve the scientific questions.³

5. Could the "days" of creation represent indefinite periods of time?

In Genesis, the "days" are numbered from 1 to 7, indicating a sequence. They consist of "an evening and a morning" — a dark period and a light period. The process of creation that is described is fiat — creation on command. The language seems clearly to indicate ordinary days.⁴

One test of whether this interpretation is correct is to determine whether the "days" are used to make any point in the rest of Scripture. They are. In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, the days of creation are used as the basis for observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. The interpretation of creation days as literal days is supported by the occurrence of the Sabbath as one literal day out of the week of seven literal days.

Interpreting the creation "days" as seven indefinite periods of time does not seem helpful. The sequence of events in Genesis does not match the geologic record. If the days are not literal, the sequence of events surely is not literal, and the process of instantaneous creation by fiat is not literal. If Genesis does not accurately describe the sequence of events or the process involved, it seems pointless to attempt to find significance in the seven time periods.

6. Did the creation take place 6000 years ago?

The Bible does not give a date for the creation. It does contain chronological and genealogical data that suggest a creation about 6000-7500 years ago, depending on which of the ancient versions is used. Some creationists have concluded that the biblical chronological data is essentially complete, and the creation occurred about 6000 years ago. Other creationists who are unconvinced that the biblical data is complete would accept an extension of time, so long as it did not change the character of the creation story. Moving the creation and flood back a few thousand years would make little theological difference, but moving it back into the millions of years would imply that humans have improved over time, which is contrary to the message of the Bible. Therefore, most biblical creationists would insist that the age of the Genesis creation is measured in thousands, but not millions, of years.

7. How did Cain find a wife if there were no other humans around before creation week?

Adam and Eve had many children, of both sexes (Genesis 5:4). Daughters' names are infrequently mentioned in Scripture, but they were present. Cain undoubtedly married a sister. This would have presented no genetic problems among people so recently created. Accumulations of harmful mutations since that time have made it highly inadvisable for siblings to produce children, because of the greatly increased probability of genetically defective offspring. Abraham apparently married a half-sister (Genesis 20:12), which suggests that within-family marriages were socially acceptable during the time of Abraham.

8. Why do Genesis 1 and 2 present different accounts of the creation?

Some feel the two accounts are contradictory, while others maintain that the two accounts are complementary. The complementary interpretation might suggest that the creation week is outlined in Genesis 1, ending in Genesis 2:4. Genesis 1 is concerned with the chronology of creation, while Genesis 2 is an amplification of the creation of humans and their Eden home. Genesis 1 introduces the universality of the creation, while Genesis 2 provides the opening for the stories of human experience told in the remainder of the book. The language of the two chapters can be interpreted as conflicting if one chooses to do so, but the language does not require a conflict.

9. What unsolved problems about creation week are of greatest concern?

What events took place on Days 1 and 4 of Creation Week? When were the water and minerals of the Earth created?

__________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Where did the water come from for the flood, and where did it go?

The oceans contain enough water to cover the Earth. If Earth's surface were perfectly smooth, with no mountains or ocean basins, it would be covered by a layer of water 3 km deep.¹ There is plenty of water to flood the Earth. Before the flood, some water was probably in the seas, some in the atmosphere, and an unknown amount of water may have been underground. The water is now in the ocean basins. It is possible that more water was added during the flood by collisions of one or more comets, which appear to be made largely of water. Most of the water is now in the ocean basins.

2. How could the flood cover Mt. Everest?

During the flood, the area that is now Mt. Everest was a basin in which sediments were accumulating. This is shown by the presence of marine fossils on Mt. Everest.² After the fossils were buried, catastrophic activity raised the sediments high above their previous position, forming the Himalaya Mountains. Most or all of our present mountains may have been formed similarly during the Flood or shortly thereafter.

3. How could the Earth be destroyed by 40 days and 40 nights of rain?

That is not all that happened during the flood. The flood waters apparently did not begin to drain for some 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Another 150 days seems to have passed before the ark landed (Genesis 8:3,4). Ten months of continuous flooding would probably produce major geologic changes in Earth's surface. In regions away from where the ark landed, the flood might have lasted considerably longer than one year.

Water was not the only agent involved in the worldwide catastrophe. The fossil layers contain more than 100 craters formed from impacts of extraterrestrial objects such as asteroids, meteorites and comets.³ Earth's crust may have undergone a major rearrangement during the flood. No doubt rain played an important part, but there was much more than rain involved in the catastrophe known as the flood.

4. How do we know the flood was worldwide? Couldn't it have been localized in the Middle East somewhere?

Jesus used the Flood as an example of universal judgment (Matthew 24:37-38). Peter confirms that only eight people were saved (2 Peter 2:5).

The wording of the Genesis text seems inconsistent with a local flood.⁴ The language is as universal as it is possible to be: "... all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered" (Genesis 7:19, RSV). If water covered the high mountains it would also cover the lower regions. Since it was God's purpose to destroy all humans (Genesis 6:7), the flood must necessarily have extended at least to all regions inhabited by humans. Furthermore, God promised there would never be another flood like that one (Genesis 9:11, Isaiah 54:9), as symbolized by the rainbow (Genesis 9:13-17). There have been many highly destructive local floods that wiped out many people. The rainbow is seen worldwide, indicating the promise applies worldwide. The Genesis flood had to involve a different level of activity than anything seen since that time.

If the flood were local, the biblical flood story wouldn't make sense. There would have been no need for an ark to save Noah or his animals. Noah could have migrated with his animals to another region to avoid a local flood.

Some have pointed to a layer of clay in some parts of the Mesopotamian Valley as evidence of a local flood. However, this clay layer is found in only some of the cities. Undoubtedly, the region has been flooded on occasion, but this has nothing to do with the Genesis flood of Noah.

5. What about the proposal that the biblical Flood occurred in the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf?

Major floods have occurred in various places. Some of these floods appear to have exceeded anything in recorded history. The Channeled Scablands Flood in the State of Washington is one such example,⁵ but several other examples have been discovered.⁶ None of these fits the biblical description of the flood. This is most obvious in the case of the proposed Black Sea and Mediterranean floods, because the respective areas are still under water.

6. What unsolved problems about the Flood are of greatest concern?

How could such a catastrophic event produce such an orderly fossil sequence? Why do fossils at the bottom of the geologic column seem so different from anything now living, while fossils higher in the column are more similar to species now living? Why do some fossils appear in a morphological series that correlates, in a general sense, with evolutionary theory? How did the plants and animals reach their present locations after the flood?

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Has Noah's ark been found?

No. Several expeditions have searched for it, but without success. Some "boat-shaped" rock formations are found in the area of Ararat, but there is nothing special about them. There are numerous reports of people who claim to have seen the ark, but there is no evidence to back them up. It seems unlikely that the ark will ever be found. Claims that the ark has been found, but that more money is needed to prove it, should be rejected. If the ark were actually discovered, the media would insure that everyone knew about it very quickly.

2. How could all the millions of species of animals fit in the ark?

They didn't. The ark was designed to include only terrestrial vertebrates — those that walk on the ground and breathe through nostrils (Genesis 7:22). This does not include marine animals, worms, insects, or plants. There are fewer than 350 living families of terrestrial vertebrates. Most of these would be the size of a house cat or smaller. If each taxonomic family was represented on the ark by one pair, with the few clean families represented by seven pairs, the ark may have needed to contain fewer than 1000 individuals. The ark could probably accommodate ten times this number.¹ The question of space for animals on the ark is not such a serious concern.

3. Is it reasonable to suppose that each taxonomic family could be represented by a single ancestral pair in the ark? Doesn't this require unreasonable post-flood evolutionary rates?

Some taxonomic families may be groups that represent more than one ancestral pair. However, one pair may have been enough in many cases. Some species today are known to possess sufficient genetic variability to produce morphological variations equivalent to different genera.² Rates of morphological change may depend on the degree of genetic isolation and extent of environmental stress as much as on time.³

4. What about food and water and sanitation for all those animals?

These questions are not discussed in Scripture. Rainwater may have been available, making storage of water unnecessary. Food was apparently stored on the ark (Genesis 6:21-22). The God who revealed the coming flood instructed Noah how to prepare the ark, and who directed the animals to the ark, could certainly manage the logistics necessary to care for them.

5. What about the food specialists, such as the koala which requires eucalyptus leaves?

We do not know whether koalas have always been restricted to eucalyptus leaves, or whether their diet has changed. We do not even know whether koalas existed before the flood, or whether they developed from some ancestor that was preserved during the flood. There probably is no way to find the answer.

6. How could animals find their way from the ark all the way to South America or Australia?

We do not know,⁴ but it seems likely that the animals were supernaturally directed to go into the ark, and again to disperse from the ark. This could have been accomplished by implanting an instinctive urge to migrate, or it could have been through the direct agency of angels. Some may object to invoking supernatural activity, but this is inherent throughout the flood story. Supernatural activity does not necessarily mean that natural laws were violated, but that events were directed by intelligent beings.

7. What unsolved problems about Noah's ark are of greatest concern?

How many different kinds of animals were saved on Noah's ark, and what are their descendants? How did terrestrial vertebrates get from the ark to their present distributions?

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last update 23 May 1997

Yes. There was a time when glaciers covered large areas of North America and northwestern Europe.¹ Most scientists believe there were several ice ages, but some creationists suspect there was only one Ice Age, with fluctuations that produced the appearance of more than one.

2. When was the Ice Age?

Probably not long after the Flood.

3. What caused the Ice Age?

There have been many conjectures about the cause of the Ice Age.² One of the best ideas is that of Michael Oard,³ who proposes that the ocean was still warm immediately after the flood. This means much water would evaporate and produce precipitation, especially along the storm track of the eastern coast of North America. This storm track brought large amounts of snow to northern North America, where the greatest buildup of ice occurred. Volcanic activity kept the summers cool, increasing the precipitation and preventing the snow and ice from melting away. As the ground became covered with snow, it reflected more of the sun's heat instead of absorbing it. This cooled the air even more, accelerating the process. After several hundred years, the ocean had cooled sufficiently that the amount of new snow declined. Volcanic activity declined also, allowing the summers to become warmer and melting the ice.

4. How long did the Ice Age last?

In Oard's model, the Ice Age might have lasted less than 1000 years. Most geologists believe several ice ages were separated by warmer periods over hundreds of thousands of years.

5. Why doesn't the Bible say anything about the Ice Age?

The Bible records the history of the people who preserved the knowledge of the promised Messiah. The Ice Age is not relevant to that history. On the other hand, references such as Job 38:22 may indicate a cooler climate in early biblical history.

6. What about other Ice Ages in the geologic column?

Other "Ice Ages" have been proposed, based on interpretation of certain evidence such as unconsolidated sediments thought to be typical of glacial activity.⁴ However, the evidence for pre-Quaternary "ice ages" is not strong, and alternative interpretations of the data have been proposed.⁵

7. What are the most significant unsolved problems regarding Ice Ages?

How do we explain the evidence that some regions of North America and Northern Europe experienced alternating intervals of glaciation and warmer climates, suggesting a longer period of time than most creationists believe was available. How do we explain ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica that are interpreted as representing periods of time of 100,000 years or more. What is the meaning of sequences of laminae interpreted as due to cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit, called Milankovich cycles?

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Have the continents truly moved apart?

Apparently so. There is considerable evidence that the continents have moved farther apart.¹

2. When did the continents separate?

The major separation may have occurred during the Flood. They appear to be moving today, although very slowly.

3. Is plate tectonics the meaning of the division of the Earth in Peleg's day mentioned in Genesis 10:25?

Probably not. The context is the "table of nations" that spread out after the flood. The text most likely means that the territory of the Earth was divided among these groups of people. There is nothing in the text that prevents the interpretation that the continents were divided at that time; however, the differences between the terrestrial vertebrates of South America and Africa are so great that it seems unlikely they were connected after the flood.

4. Does Pangaea represent the pre-Flood world?

Probably not. Pangaea is largely covered with marine sediments, suggesting it was a basin or epicontinental sea where deposition took place during the Flood. The pre-Flood continents may have been destroyed in the Flood.

5. How could the continents move fast enough to rearrange the whole surface of the Earth during the year of the Flood?

It may not be necessary that all plate movements were completed during the Flood; significant plate movements might have continued for some time after the Flood. In any case, the causes of plate movement are not well understood. They move very slowly at present, but might move much faster given appropriate conditions. A large amount of energy would be needed; perhaps this could have been provided by extraterrestrial impacts.² A lower melting temperature of the basalt rocks would have facilitated plate movement; it is known that the presence of water in basalt lowers its melting point.³ It is not known whether plate movement might have been facilitated by the "waters under the earth" or the break-up of the "fountains of the deep," but this possibility is worth considering. A group of creationists recently published a theory of rapid plate movement that may provide some answers to this question.⁴ Such rapid plate movement would heat the plates so much that it should take a long time for them to cool.

6. What unsolved problems about plate tectonics are of greatest concern?

How much have the plates actually moved? When and how rapidly have they moved? What happened to the pre-Flood continents? How could the ocean-floor magma cool in a few thousand years if they moved so fast during the Flood?⁵

__________

__________________________________________________________________

Last update 5 March 2002

1. Is it scientific to believe in creation?

In our society, science is usually thought of as meaning naturalistic. In that sense, creation cannot be scientific, because creation means that a supernatural intelligence is active in nature. However, science might be defined in other ways.¹ If "science" means the study of nature, then creation might be "scientific." This follows if nature is understood in relationship to God as creator. Many of the founders of science believed that God was active in nature, and that they were merely studying His methods of working in nature.² History shows that separation of God and nature is not necessary for advancement in knowledge. Nevertheless, science is generally concerned with testing predictions derived from specific hypotheses. The hypothesis that God caused an event through means that are not possible to investigate would not be considered a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be tested.

For some, the term "scientific" means logical belief, as opposed to superstition. This meaning is inherent in "scientism" — the belief that naturalistic science is the only way to discover truth. This is a misuse of the term "scientific" which makes it impossible to answer the question whether it is scientific to believe in creation, or in any other theory of origins.

2. Isn't it necessary that science be naturalistic?

Science has advanced because scientists sought answers to questions about how events occurred. This can be investigated regardless of whether one believes God is directing the events. Scientists need not believe in naturalism, so long as they seek to understand the mechanism by which events occur.

3. If God's activities were acknowledged by scientists, wouldn't that stifle research?

Belief that God is active in nature did not stifle research for the founders of science, and it need not do so today. The problem to avoid is to fail to investigate a phenomenon because one believes God caused it. Many scientists have been stimulated to study nature because they believed God was active in nature and could be better understood through study of His handiwork.

4. What unsolved problems about creation and science are of greatest concern?

How do we find truth when reason and faith seem to clash?

__________

Geoscience Home Page