April 24, 2002
Dinosaurs and the Flood? (from: Dinosaurs & Young Earth)
Since "saurus" means "lizard", and we have observed on other occasions
that some species of lizard continue growing in size, the longer number
of years they live...indeed, it seems apparent that there -WERE-
dinosaurs after the flood.
Are you saying that the Great Flood may not have been worldwide? Or
that not all creatures were destroyed in the Flood? Or do you think
that Noah carried the dinosaurs on his ark, and if so, how many species
do you think he could have had?
Wouldn't it make sense he carried them in the ark? while they were yet
-young-, and thus... "small"? But, of course, Scripture is quite clear
that the flood was "worldwide". "All" the "hills" were covered
(Gen7:19), and the "mountains" were covered. (vs20) And "all" living
things that lived by breathing..that weren't saved in the ark..died.
"Carbon dating is flawed."
Amen to that, but can you explain how? I've always wondered if it has
something to do with an acceleration of carbon remnants that make it
appear to be older than it really is. Something like the depletion rate
of uranium - the older it gets, the more rapid the rate of depletion? I
just have never understood how carbon dating is supposed to work.
Well...we addressed this a couple weeks ago. If conditions were
different before and after the flood, due to the collapse of the water
canopy (Gen1:6-7), such a collapse would have changed the filtration of
radiation energy. We speculated that when Noah got drunk after the
flood, perhaps that was the first they 'discovered' fermentation?
Before the flood people lived over 900 years. After the flood, it
resolved downwards to 100-and-less. If the aging process changed, and
fermenation came into existence...certainly the processes that leave
the residues that they measure with carbon dating would have also
changed. I'm no scientist to know everything about carbon dating...but
this certainly makes sense, yes?
A subscriber (from Brazil?) sent the following
on Carbon Dating.
stuff I've read in the past, but never remember all the details in a
form to be able to regurgitate to others. A good supplement supporting
what we have been saying about our "young" earth. Pasted 'as-received':
Regarding Radio Carbon Dating. Simplefied explanation:
Radiocarbon, C14 is an isotope of C12. C14 is generated in nature in
the upper atmosphere by neutrons bombardment of the nucleus of
Nitrogen. The Van Allen belt shields the earth from this bombardment
from outer space. The intensity of the Van Allen belt is closely
related to the earth's magnetic field. The earth's magnetic is
apparently decaying rapidly. [VW Editor: And I've been reading some
things lately that say the magnetic poles are about to reverse again;
that on some parts of the globe the process has already begun.] For
example, when Christ was born it was approximately three times as
strong as today. At the other hand "the waters which were above the
firmament" could have a cosmic ray shielding power equivalent to 1
meter thick Lead plate. The influx of cosmic rays, which includes
neutrons, could have been close to zero before the Flood. Cosmic rays
are the prime cause for aging. The conditions before the Flood would
provide long life for living organisms and nearly avoid the generation
of C14 in the atmosphere.
The radiocarbon dating method presumes that the present C14 generation
rate was the same since thousands, or millions, years back, and that
the decay rate (C14 has a half life time of about 5740 years) is
stabilized (equal) with the generation rate.
All breathing organisms inhal, besides Oxigen, Nitrogen and rare gases,
Carbon dioxide (CO2). Some of the CO2 is formed from C14, in the same
proportion that C12 and C14 are encountered in today's atmosphere.
After dying the organisms stop breathing and CO2 is not renewed in the
organism. The C14 in the dead body's starts decaying and the CO2
generated from C14 starts decreasing. If a fossil contains half of the
C14 from that of a living organism it is dated 5740 years old!
But, if the zero C14 of the pre Flood condition would have been
considered, a fossil from before the flood would have a C14 content
near zero at the time it died and would show very old by today's dating
processes. (You find all this in Dr. Henry Morris
and associate's books at ICR).
And what about the Gap Theory? I mean, if you're going to stir up this
ant hill, why not go for broke? As I understand it, something
cataclysmic happened in the earth's history between Gen.1:1 and Gen.
Who says? Is there a verse 'missing' between 1 & 2? (tongue-in-cheek)
The earth being "void" - "void" being translated as being in chaos, as
if some event cause horrific damage
Not necessarily. "void" is likely the same kind of void one finds on
the moon, mars, saturn, etc. Any planetoid that simply exists...but
nothing resemlbing 'life' exists on it. It sits there, 'empty'...which
is what 'void' means. "not occupied, empty, containing nothing" The
word "Void" does not, by definition, presume some sort of catastrophe.
(like a huge asteroid crashing and causing the dust bowl that choked
off the sunlight
All those things can be explained by the Flood.
and killed off the dinosaurs (another theory of their disappearance).
But, this mailing you are replying to...we know they still (at least
some of them) existed even until Job.
Or, like a war in the heavens, in which the earth was horribly damaged
and creation was suffering.
These are theories not corroborated with Scripture. Some theologians
take prophecy and turn them into an imagined "history" to suit their
theories, because they can't let go of the world's theories of
uniformitariasm-based evolution. If a person listens to those theories,
then they are calling God a liar, and the Scriptures 'false'. When one
reads Genesis ch1, it is -quite- clear that creation took place in 6
sunrise/sunset days. God created the heavens and the earth...and earth,
until God started focusing on it, was like all the rest of the planets
out there..."void". So God chose earth, to make it into a habitation
for life...which made it become un-void. Yes? And considering this
fact, man can just stop 'searching' for -life- "out-there". There is
none. There is only life on this earth. As 'fun' as all these sci-fi
outer space adventures may be, in expanding the imaginations (I also
personally enjoy them), in actuality they are all based on Darwinian
evolution...the theory that, if evolution took place here...then it
just as easily could "out-there-someplace", too. But it didn't...here
or there. Period.