By Jim Gibson
Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California
Last update: 5 March 2002
To obtain a PDF version of this document, click here.
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:
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.
DISCLAIMER: THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN THIS MANUSCRIPT DO
NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OF ANY GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL. THEY MAY NOT EVEN
REPRESENT MY VIEWS BY THE TIME YOU READ THEM. THEY ARE ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO
PRESENT SOME IDEAS THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL IN CONSIDERING THE PROBLEMS OF
UNDERSTANDING EARTH HISTORY.
Contents:
1. Dinosaurs
9. Noah's ark
10. The Ice Age
11. Plate tectonics
Further information is available through our web site: http://www.grisda.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT
DINOSAURS
Last Update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Dinosaurs
1. Many books have been written about dinosaurs. Some
examples are listed below. (a) Carpenter K, Hirsch KF, Horner JR.
1994. Dinosaur eggs and babies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (b)
Fastovsky DE, Weishampel DB. 1996. The evolution and extinction of the
dinosaurs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (c) Lockley M, Hunt AP.
1995. Dinosaur tracks. NY: Columbia University Press; (d) Weishampel DB, Dodson
P, Osmolska H, editors. 1990. The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California
Press; (e) Padian K, Currie PJ, editors. 1997. Encyclopedia of dinosaurs. NY:
Academic Press.
2. Dodson P. 1990. Counting dinosaurs: how many kinds
were there? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 87:7608-7612.
Dodson counted 285 genera. Since that time, several more genera have been named.
3. Neufeld B. 1975. Dinosaur tracks and giant men.
Origins 2:64-76.
4. Information on Archaeopteryx is found in many books,
such as: (a) Carroll RL. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. London: WH
Freeman. The Chinese fossils are discussed in various papers, e.g.: (b) Qiang J,
Currie PJ, Norell MA, Shuan J. 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from
northeastern China. Nature 393:753-761; (c) Stokstad E. 2000. Feathers, or
flight of fancy? Science 288:2124-2125.
5. (a) Burke AC, Feduccia A. 1997. Developmental
patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand. Science
278:666-668; (b) Ruben JA, et al. 1997. Lung structure and ventilation in
theropod dinosaurs and early birds. Science 278:1267-1270.
6. (a) Martin LD. 1991. Mesozoic birds and the origin of
birds. In: Schultze H-P, Trueb L, editors. Origins of the higher groups of
tetrapods. Ithaca and London: Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University
Press, p 485-540; (b) Tarsitano S. 1991. Ibid, p 541-576; (c) Jones
TD. 2000. Nonavian feathers in a Late Triassic archosaur. Science 288:2202-2205;
(d) Stokstad (see Endnote 4c).
7. See, e.g.: (a) Kennedy ME. 1994. Paleobiology of
dinosaurs. Geoscience Reports No. 17. Loma Linda, CA: Geoscience Research
Institute, Loma Linda, CA.; (b) Lamert D, and the Diagram Group. 1990. The
dinosaur data book. NY: Avon Books.
8. See: (a) Ruben JA, Hillenius WJ, Geist NR, et al.
1996. The metabolic status of some late Cretaceous dinosaurs. Science
273:1204-1207; (b) Fisher PE, Russell DA, Stoskopf MK, Barrick RE,
Hammer M, Kuzmitz AA. 2000. Cardiovascular evidence for an intermediate
or higher metabolic rates in ornithischian dinosaur. Science 288:503-505
9. A number of these deposits are transported and are
not true nests. See: Kennedy EM, Spencer L. 1995. An unusual occurrence of
dinosaur eggshell fragments in a storm surge deposit, Lamargue Group, Patagonia,
Argentina. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 26(6):A-318.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT FOSSIL HUMANS
Last update 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Fossil Humans
1. (a) Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ, + 17 other
authors. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant
Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290:1155-1159; (b) Arsuaga JL. 1999. El collar del Neandertal: en
busca de los peimeros pensadores. Madrid: Ediciones Temas de Hoy. See also: (c)
Prideaux T. 1973. Cro-Magnon man. NY: Time-Life Books.
2. For a creationist interpretation, see: (a) Lubenow
ML. 1992. Bones of contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; for an
evolutionist interpretation, see: (b) Rightmire GP. 1981. Patterns in the
evolution of Homo erectus. Paleobiology 7:241-246; (c) Ciochon RL, Fleagle JG.
1993. The human evolution source book. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall; (d) Facchini
F. 19990. El origen del hombre.
Madrid: Aguilar.
3. Stringer
C, Gambel C. 1993. In search of the Neanderthals. NY: Thames and Hudson.
4. Ruff CB, Trinkaus E, Holliday TW. 1997. Body mass and
encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature 387:173-176.
5. (a) Krings M, Stone A, SchmitzRW, Krainitzki H,
Stoneking M, Paabo S. 1997. Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern
humans. Cell 90:19-30; (b) Krings M, Geisert H, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Paabo
S. 1999. DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the
Neandertal type specimen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)
96:5581-5585.
6. Arsuaga (see Endnote 1b). See also Prideaux (Endnote
1c).
7. A recent discussion of archaic humans is given in:
Tattersall I. 1997. Out of Africa again... and again? Scientific American
276(4):60-67.
8. Hartwig-Scherer
S, Martin RD. 1991. Was "Lucy" more human than her
"child"? Observations on early hominid postcranial skeletons. Journal
of Human Evolution 21:439-449.
9. Spoor F, Wood B, Zonneveld F. 1994. Implications of
early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion.
Nature 369:645-648.
10. A collection of some important papers in this field
is found in: Ciochon RL, Fleagle JG, editors. 1993. The human evolution source
book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Kennedy E. 1996. The search for Adam's ancestors.
Dialogue 8(1):12-15,34. A summary of fossil humans by a creationist is given by:
Lubenow ML. 1992. Bones of contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT CHANGE IN SPECIES
Last Update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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.
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Change in Species
1. Marsh FL. 1947. Evolution, creation and science. 2d
edition. Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn. On pages 174-175,
reference is made to the term "baramin", a term coined by Marsh
earlier (see Marsh's footnote on p 174). For an application of this concept,
see: Wood T, Cavanaugh DP. 2001. A baraminological anlaysis of the subtribe
Flavertinae (Asteraceae: Helenieae) and the origin of biological complexity.
Origins 52:7-27.
2. Wayne RK. 1986. Cranial morphology of domestic and
wild canids: the influence of development on morphological change. Evolution
40:243-261.
3. See: (a) Brand LR, Gibson LJ. 1993. An
interventionist theory of natural selection and biological change within limits.
Origins 20:60-82; (b) Lester LP, Bohlin RG. 1984. The natural limits to
biological change. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
4. A discussion of this question is in: Van Valen L.
1973. Are categorie in phyla comparable? Taxon 22:333-359.
5. E.g., see: Hendry AP, Kinnison MT. 1999. The pace of
modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution
53:1637-1653.
6. Pseudogenes provide an important example. For an
evolutionistic view, see: Max E. 1987. Plagiarized errors and molecular
genetics. Creation/Evolution 6(9):34-45. For contrasting reactions, see: (a)
Gilbert G. 1992. In search of Genesis and the pseudogene. Spectrum 22(4):10-21;
(b) Gibson LJ. 1994. Pseudogenes and origins. Origins 21:91-108.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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.
Endnotes for Questions about the Origin of Life
1. (a) Javor GT. 1987. Origin of life: a look at late
20th-century thinking. Origins 14:7-20; (b) Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen
RL. 1984. The mystery of life's origin: Reassessing current theories. NY:
Philosophical Library.
2. McKay DS, et al. 1996. Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Science 273:924-930.
3. See: (a) Bradley JP, Harvey RP, McSween HY. 1997. No
"nanofossils" in martian meteorite. Nature 390:454; (b) Yockey HP.
1997. Life on Mars? Did it come from Earth? Origins and Design 18(1):10-15; (c)
Jull AJT, Courtney C, Jeffrey DA, Beck JW. 1998. Isotopic evidence for a
terrestrial source of organic compounds found in Martian meteorites Allan Hills
84001 and Elephant Morain 79001. Science 279:366-369; (d) Kerr RA. 1998. Requiem
for life on Mars? Support for microbes fades. Science 282:1398-1400.
4. Malen MC, Edgett KS. 2000. Sedimentary rocks of early
Mars. Science 290:1927-1937.
5. See: (a) Horgan J. 1995. From complexity to
perplexity. Scientific American 272(1):104-109; (b) Yockey HP. 1992. Information
theory and molecular biology. Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. See Javor GT. 1989. A new attempt to understand the
origin of life: the theory of surface-metabolism. Origins 16:40-44.
7. (a) Miller SL, Bada JL. 1988. Submarine hot springs
and the origin of life. Nature 334:609-611; (b) Moulton V, Gardner PP,
Pointon RF, Creamer LK, Jameson GB, Penny D. 2000. RNA folding argues against a
hot-start origin of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 51:416-421.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT RADIOCARBON DATING
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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
Endnotes for Questions about Radiocarbon Dating
1. The method is more fully described in: Newcomb RC.
1990. Absolute age determination. Berlin and NY: Springer-Verlag, p 162-180.
2. (a) See Chapter 26 in Coffin HG, Brown RH. 1983.
Origin by design. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publ. Assn.; (b) Brown RH.
1988. The upper limit of C-14 age? Origins 15:39-43; (c) Brown RH. 1994.
Compatibility of biblical chronology with C-14 age. Origins 21:66-79; (d) Giem
PAL. 1997. Scientific theology. Riverside, CA: La Sierra University Press, p
175-187; (e) Giem P. 2000. Carbon-14 dating models and experimental
implications. Origins 24:50-64. The use of tree-rings to calibrate radiocarbon
dates is criticized by: (f) Brown RH. 1995. Can tree rings be used to calibrate
radiocarbon dates? Origins 22:47-52; see also: (g) Radiocarbon 34(1), (1993),
which is devoted to calibration of radiocarbon dating.
3. See p 158 in the book by Newcomb in Endnote 1.
4. (a) Hesshaimer V, Helmann M, Levin I. 1994.
Radiocarbon evidence for a smaller oceanic carbon dioxide sink than previously
believed. Nature 370:201-203; (b) Joos F. 1994. Nature 370:181-182; (c) see
comments by Brown RH. 1994. Compatibility of biblical chronology with C-14 age.
Origins 21:66-79.
5. Post WM, Peng TH, Emanuel WR, King AW, Dale VH,
Deangelis DL. 1990. The global carbon cycle. American Scientist 78(4):310-326.
According to these authors, the total mobile (non-carbonate) carbon in the
biosphere is about 40,000-45,000 gigatons. The amount of carbon in fossil fuels
is estimated at 6,000 gigatons, and the amount of kerogens (organic) in
sediments is about 15 million gigatons. This gives a ratio of 300:1 for
pre-Flood biosphere carbon to present biosphere carbon. This is off by a factor
of only two from the figure of 143:1 sought for by Brown (Origins 15:39-43, see
Endnote 2 for full reference).
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGE OF THE EARTH
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
1. How old is the Earth?
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
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.
Endnotes for Questions about the Age of the Earth
1. See: (a) Newcomb RC. 1990. Absolute age
determination. Berlin and NY:
Springer-Verlag; (b) Faure G. 1986. Principles of isotope geology.
2d edition. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
2. See: (a) Brown RH. 1983. How solid is a radioisotope
age of a rock? Origins 10:93-95; (b) Brown RH. 1977. Radiometric age and
the traditional Hebrew-Christian view of time. Origins 4:68-75; (c) Giem PAL.
1997. Scientific theology. Riverside, CA: La Sierra University Press, p 116-136;
(d) Brown RH. 1996. Radioisotope age, Part 1. Geoscience Reports No. 20; (e)
Webster CL. 1996. Radioisotope age, Part 2. Geoscience Reports No 21; (f) Clausen BL.
1997. Radioisotope age, Part 3. Geoscience Reports No 22. Loma Linda, CA:
Geoscience Research Institute; (g) Vardiman L, Snelling AA, Chaffin E,
editors. 2000. Radioisotopes and the age of the earth. Santee CA: Institute for
Creation Research; St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT CREATION WEEK
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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
Perhaps light was produced 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
3. Why doesn't the sequence of the days of creation
match the sequence in the fossil record?
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 process 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
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Creation Week
1. See: (a) Mitchell C. 1995. The case for creationism.
Grantham, Lincs, UK: Autumn House Publ, p 205; (b) Coffin HG, Brown RH. 1983.
Origin by design. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publ. Assn, Chapter 1.
2. This interpretation would explain Job 38:7 as
referring to the rejoicing of the intelligent beings on other worlds at the
creation of the world. That there are other worlds with intelligent beings is
indicated in the story of Satan representing the Earth in the heavenly council
in Job 1:6 and 2:1.
3. See: Hasel GF. 1994. The "days" of creation
in Genesis 1: literal "days" or figurative "periods/epochs"
of time? Origins 21:5-38.
4. See Endnote 3.
5. (a) Luo PHK. 1989. Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis
1? Ministry (March), p 15; (b) Shea WH. 1989. Literary structural parallels
between Genesis 1 and 2. Origins 16:49-68; (c) Younker RW. 2000. Genesis 2: a
second creation account? In: Baldwin JT, editor. Creation, Catastrophe and
Calvary. Hagerstown MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 69-78.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE GENESIS FLOOD
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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?
Endnotes for Questions about the Genesis Flood
1. Dubach HW, Taber RW. 1968. Questions about the
oceans. Publication G13. Washington DC: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, p 35.
2. Odell NE. 1967. The highest fossils in the world.
Geological Magazine 104(1):73-74.
3. (a) Grieve RAF. 1987. Terrestrial impact structures.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 15:245-270; (b) Grieve RAF.
1990. Impact cratering on the Earth. Scientific American 262(4):66-73; (c) Lewis
FS. 1996. Rain of iron and ice. NY: Helix Books, Addison-Wesley Publishing; (d)
Gibson LJ. 1990. A catastrophe with an impact. Origins 17:38-47.
4. (a) Hasel GF. 1975. The biblical view of the extent
of the flood. Origins 2:77-95; (b) Hasel GF. 1978. Some issues
regarding the nature and universality of the Genesis flood narrative. Origins
5:83-98; (c) Davidson RM. 1995. Biblical evidence for the universality of the
Genesis Flood. Origins 22:58-73.
5. Allen JE, Burns M, Sargent SC. 1986. Cataclysms on
the Columbia. Portland OR: Timber Press.
6. A great Siberian flood is described in: (a) Baker VR,
Benito G, Rudoy AN. 1993. Paleohydrology of Late Pleistocene superflooding,
Altay Mountains, Siberia. Science 259:348-350. The story of discovery of a
Mediterranean flood is told in: (b): Hsh KJ. 1983. The Mediterranean was a
desert. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Evidence of a Black Sea Flood
has been reported in (c) the Washington Post (September 13, 2002); a Persian
Gulf flood has been proposed by: (d) Teller JT, Glennie KW, Lancaster N, Singhvi
AK. 2000. Noah's flood and its impact on the Persian Gulf region. Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs 32(7):A-276.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT NOAH'S ARK
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Noah's Ark
1. For a creationist discussion of space on the ark,
see: Woodmorappe J. 1994. The biota and logistics of Noah's ark. In Walsh RE,
editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, July
18-23, 1994. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, p 623-631.
2. (a) Wayne RK. 1986. Cranial morphology of domestic
and wild canids: the influence of development on morphological change. Evolution
40:243-261; (b) see also the FAQ on change in species.
3. Parsons PA. 1988. Evolutionary rates: effects of
stress upon recombination. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 35:49-68.
4. A creationist discussion of South American
biogeography is given in: (a) Gibson LJ. 1998. Historical biogeography of South
America, Part I: living vertebrates. Geoscience Reports 25:1-6; (b) Gibson LJ.
1998. Historical biogeography of South America, Part II: fossil vertebrates.
Geoscience Reports 26:1-6.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE ICE AGE
Last update: 23 May 1997
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
1. Was there an Ice Age?
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?
Endnotes for Questions about the Ice Age
1. Wright AE, Moseley F, editors. 1975. Ice Ages:
ancient and modern. Geological Journal Special Issue No. 6. Liverpool: See House
Press.
2. Imbrie J, Imbrie KP. 1979. Ice Ages: solving the
mystery. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
3. See: (a) Oard MJ. 1990. A post-flood ice-age model
can account for Quaternary features. Origins 17:8-26; (b) Oard MJ. 1984a. Ice
ages: the mystery solved? Part I: The inadequacy of a uniformitarian Ice Age.
Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:66-76; (c) Oard MJ. 1984b. Ice ages: the
mystery solved? Part II: The manipulation of deep-sea cores. Creation Research
Society Quarterly 21:125-137; (d) Oard MJ. 1985. Ice ages: The mystery solved?
Part III: Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and data manipulation. Creation
Research Society Quarterly 21:170-181; (e) Oard MJ. 1990. An ice-age
caused by the Genesis Flood. ICR Technical Monograph. El Cajon, CA: Institute
for Creation Research.
4. See various chapters in reference in Endnote 1.
5. See: (a) Gravenor CP, Von Brunn V. 1987. Aspects of
Late Paleozoic glacial sedimentation in parts of the Parana Basin, Brazil, and
the Karoo Basin, South Africa, with special reference to the origin of massive
diamictite. In McKenzie GD, editor. Gondwana Six: Stratigraphy, Sedimentology
and Paleontology. Geophysical Monograph 41. Washington DC: American Geophysical
Union, p 103-111; (b) Rampino MR. 1994. Tillites, diamictites, and ballistic
ejecta of large impacts. Journal of Geology 102:439-456; (c) Bennett MR, Doyle
P, Mather AE. 1996. Dropstones: their origin and significance. Palaeogeography,
Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology 121:331-339; (d) Oberbeck VR, Marshall JR,
Aggarwal H. 1993. Impacts, tillites, and the breakup of Gondwanaland.
Journal of Geology 101:1-19; (e) Responses in Journal of Geology
101:675-679; 102:483-485.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT PLATE TECTONICS
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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
Endnotes for Questions about Plate Tectonics
1. (a) Snelling AA. 1995. Plate tectonics: have the
continents really moved apart? CEN Technical Journal 9(1):12-20; (b) Wilson
JT, editor. 1976. Continents adrift and continents aground. Readings from
Scientific American. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
2. (a) Clube V, Napier B. 1982. Close encounters with a
million comets. New Scientist 95:148-151; (b) Glikson AY. 1995. Asteroid/comet
mega-impacts may have triggered major episodes of crustal evolution. EOS,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 76(6):49ff. See also: (c) Gibson
LJ. 1990. A catastrophe with an impact. Origins 17:38-47.
3. Thompson AB. 1992. Water in the Earth's upper mantle.
Nature 358:295-302.
4. Baumgardner JR. 1994. Runaway subjection as the
driving mechanism for the Genesis flood. In: Walsh RE, editor. Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation
Science Fellowship, p 63-75.
5. This problem was raised in: (a) Barnes RO. 1980.
Thermal consequences of a short time scale for sea-floor spreading. Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation 32(2):123-125. The problem remains unsolved,
but some interesting work on related problems can be found in: (b) Snelling A.
1991. The formation and cooling of dykes. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
5:81-90; (c) Snelling AA. 1996. `Rapid' granite formation? Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal 10:175-177; (d) Anonymous. 1996. Queries and comments.
Origins (Biblical Creation Society) No 21, p 22-23.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT CREATION AND SCIENCE
Last update: 5 March 2002
See the disclaimer at the beginning of this paper
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?
Endnotes for Questions about Creation and Science
1. Philosophies of science from Christian perspectives
are given in: (a) Ratzsch D. 1986. Philosophy of Science. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press; (b) Pearcey NR, Thaxton CB. 1994. The soul of science:
Christian faith and natural philosophy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, Good News
Publishers; (c) Seventh-day Adventists should consult Testimonies to the Church,
Vol. 8, p 255-261 for an enlightening statement on God, nature and science.
2. (a) Ashton JF, editor. 2000. In six days. Green
Forest, AR: Master Books; (b) Graves D. 1996. Scientists of faith. Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel Resources.