Moose75

BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH

Attempts to place the time necessary for an ancient Earth during the creation week (the Day-Age Theory) have proven unsuccessful. Similarly, attempts to insert the time needed for an old Earth before the creation week (the Gap Theory) also have failed. Subsequently, the idea has been proposed that perhaps geologic time might be placed after the creation week of Genesis 1.

Those willing to offer such a suggestion, however, have been few and far between because of a major obstacle in the biblical record to such a compromise. As every student of the Sacred Scriptures is aware, the Bible contains lengthy genealogies. That these records play a vital role in biblical literature is clear from the amount of space devoted to them in God’s Word. Furthermore, they provide a tremendous protection of the text via the message they tell. That message is this: man has been on the Earth since the beginning, and that beginning was not very long ago.

While genealogies (and chronologies) serve various functions in the literature of Scripture, one of their main purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to the unfolding of Jehovah’s redemptive plan. These lists, therefore, form a connecting link from the earliest days of humanity to the completion of God’s salvation system. In order for them to have any evidential value, the lists must be substantially complete.

Yet some Bible believers—determined to incorporate evolutionary dating schemes into God’s Word—have complained that the biblical genealogies may not be used for chronological purposes because they allegedly contain huge “gaps” that render them ineffective for that purpose. Donald England has suggested, for example: “Furthermore, it is a misuse of Biblical genealogies to attempt to date the origin of man by genealogy” (1983, p. 155). John Clayton advocated the same view when he wrote: “Any attempt to ascribe a specific or even a general age to either man or the Earth from a Biblical standpoint is a grievous error” (n.d.[a], p. 3). Clayton also stated: “The time of man’s beginning is not even hinted at in the Bible. There is no possible way of determining when Adam was created” (n.d.[b], p. 2).

In so commenting, most writers reference (as does Clayton) the nineteenth-century author, William H. Green (1890), whose writings on the genealogies usually are accepted uncritically—and acclaimed unjustifiably—by those whose intent is to insert “gaps” (of whatever size) into the biblical genealogies. Thus, we are asked to believe that the biblical genealogies are relatively useless in matters of chronology.

However, these same writers conspicuously avoid any examination of more recent material which has shown that certain portions of Green’s work either were incomplete or inaccurate. And while references to the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are commonplace, discussions of material from chapter 3 of Luke’s Gospel appear to be quite rare. Two important points bear mentioning in regard to genealogical listings. First, to use the words of Custance:


We are told again and again that some of these genealogies contain gaps: but what is never pointed out by those who lay the emphasis on these gaps, is that they only know of the existence of these gaps because the Bible elsewhere fills them in. How otherwise could one know of them? But if they are filled in, they are not gaps at all! Thus, in the final analysis the argument is completely without foundation (1967, p. 3).
If anyone wanted to find gaps in the biblical genealogies, it was Dr. Custance—who spent his entire adult life searching for a way to accommodate the Bible to an old-Earth scenario. Yet even he admitted that arguments alleging that the genealogies contain sizable gaps are unfounded.

Second, even if there were gaps in the genealogies, there would not necessarily be gaps in the chronologies therein recorded. The question of chronology is not the same as that of genealogy. This is a critical point that has been overlooked by those who suggest that the genealogies are useless in matters of chronology. The “more recent work” alluded to above as documenting the accuracy of the genealogies is from James B. Jordan, who reviewed Green’s work and showed a number of his arguments to be untrustworthy. To quote Jordan:


Gaps in genealogies, however, do not prove gaps in chronologies. The known gaps all occur in non-chronological genealogies. Moreover, even if there were gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, this would not affect the chronological information therein recorded, for even if Enosh were the great-grandson of Seth, it would still be the case that Seth was 105 years old when Enosh was born, according to a simple reading of the text. Thus, genealogy and chronology are distinct problems with distinct characteristics. They ought not to be confused (1979/1980, p. 12).
Unfortunately, many who attempt to defend the concept of an ancient Earth have confused these two issues. For example, some have suggested that abridgment of the genealogies has occurred and that these genealogies therefore cannot be chronologies, when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true, as Jordan’s work has documented. Matthew, for example, is at liberty to arrange his genealogy of Christ in three groups of 14 (making some omissions) because his record is derived from more complete lists available via the Old Covenant. In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, remember also that the inclusion of the father’s age at the time of his son’s birth is wholly without meaning unless chronology is intended. Else why would the Holy Spirit provide such “irrelevant” information?

Plus, there are other important considerations. Observe the following in chart form. Speaking in round figures, from the present to Jesus was roughly 2,000 years—a figure obtainable via secular, historical documents. From Jesus to Abraham also was approximately 2,000 years—another figure that is verifiable historically.


Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years
Abraham to Adam ? years

The only figure missing is the one that represents the time period from Abraham to Adam. Since we know that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), and since we know as a result of Christ’s testimony that man has been on the Earth “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6; cf. Romans 1:20-21), if it were possible to obtain the figures for the length of time between Abraham and Adam we then would have chronological information providing the relative age of the Earth (since we also know that the Earth is only five days older than man—Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17).

The figure representing the time span between Abraham and Adam, of course, is not obtainable from secular history (nor should we expect it to be) since large portions of those records were destroyed in the Great Flood. But the figure is obtainable—via the biblical record. Allow me to explain.

First, few today would doubt the fact that from the present to Jesus has been approximately 2,000 years. [For our purpose here, it does not matter whether Christ is viewed as the Son of God since the discussion centers solely on the fact of His existence—something that secular history documents beyond doubt.] Second, in Luke 3 the learned physician provided a genealogy that encompassed 55 generations spanning the distance between Jesus and Abraham—a time frame that archaeology has shown covered roughly 2,000 years (see Kitchen and Douglas, 1982, p. 189). Third, Luke documents that between Abraham and Adam there were only twenty generations. Thus, the chart now looks like this:


Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam ? years (20 generations)

Since Genesis 5 provides the ages of the fathers at the time of the births of the sons between Abraham and Adam (thus providing chronological data), it becomes a simple matter to determine the approximate number of years involved. In round numbers, that figure is 2,000 (see Arthur, 1999, p. 113) The chart then appears as follows.


Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam 2,000 years (20 generations)

[The fact that 55 generations between Jesus and Abraham cover 2,000 years, while only 20 generations between Abraham and Adam cover the same 2,000 years, can be accounted for, of course, on the basis of the vast ages to which the patriarchs lived. See Thompson, 1995, pp. 265-275.]

Some have argued that there are sizable gaps in the genealogies (e.g., Clayton, 1980a, pp. 6-7). But, where, exactly, should those gaps be placed, and how would they help? Observe the following. No one can place gaps between the present and the Lord’s birth because secular history accurately records that age-information. No one can insert gaps between the Lord’s birth and Abraham because secular history also accurately records that age-information. The only place one could put any “usable” gaps (viz., usable in regard to extending the age of the Earth) would be in the 20 generations between Abraham and Adam. Yet notice that there are not actually 20 generations available for the insertion of gaps because Jude specifically stated that “Enoch was the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14). An examination of the Old Testament genealogies establishes the veracity of Jude’s statement since, counting from Adam, Enoch was the seventh. Jude’s statement thus provides divinely inspired testimony regarding the accuracy of the first seven names in Luke’s genealogy—thereby leaving only 13 generations between which any gaps could be placed.

In a fascinating article several years ago, Wayne Jackson observed that in order to accommodate the biblical record only as far back as the appearance of man’s alleged evolutionary forebear (approximately 3.6 million years), one would have to insert 291,125 years in between each of the remaining 13 generations from Abraham to Adam as provided in Luke’s genealogy (1978, 14[18]:1). It does not take an overdose of either biblical knowledge or common sense to see that this quickly becomes ludicrous in the extreme for two reasons. First, who could believe that the first seven of these generations are so exact while the last thirteen are so inexact? Is it proper biblical exegesis to suggest that the first seven listings are correct as written, but gaps covering more than a quarter of a million years may be inserted between each of the last thirteen? Second, what good would all of this do anyone? All it would accomplish is the establishment of a 3.6 million year-old Earth; old-Earth creationists, progressive creationists, and theistic evolutionists need a 4.6 billion year-old Earth. So, in effect, all of this insertion of “gaps” into the biblical text is much ado about nothing.

And therein lies the point. While it may be true on the one hand to say that an exact age of the Earth is unobtainable from the information contained within the genealogies, at the same time it is important to note that—using the best information available to us from Scripture—the genealogies hardly can be extended to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to suggest that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological information, or that the genealogies somehow are so full of gaps as to render them useless, is to misrepresent the case and distort the facts.

MISCELLANEOUS OLD-EARTH THEORIES

Numerous religionists have seen the abject failure of both the Day-Age and Gap theories, yet they remain as determined as ever to find a way to force evolutionary time into the biblical text. This misguided determination therefore causes them to formulate, modify, temporarily accept, and then abandon theory after theory in search of one they hope eventually will succeed. Unfortunately, many Bible believers have not yet come to the conclusion that the Genesis account is a literal, factual, and defensible record of God’s method of creation. And so, rather than accept that account at face value—as Christ and His inspired writers did—they constantly seek ways to alter it by appealing to one theory after another in the hope of ultimately incorporating geologic time into the biblical record. In many instances, the resulting “new” theories are little more than a reworking of the old, discarded theories that long ago were banished to the relic heaps of history because they could not withstand intense examination under the spotlight of God’s Word. One such theory making the rounds today is known as the “Modified Gap Theory.” Because of its increasing popularity, it bears examination here.

The Modified Gap Theory

Over the past three decades, one of the most frequently used lecturers within certain segments of the churches of Christ has been John N. Clayton, a self-proclaimed former atheist who teaches high school science in South Bend, Indiana. Due to his background in historical geology, Clayton has worked at a feverish pace to produce an illegitimate amalgamation between the evolutionary geologic record and the Genesis account of creation, the end result of which is an off-beat brand of theistic evolution that reflects his own “private theology” (see Francella, 1981). Consequently, he is recognized widely by those active in the creation/ evolution controversy as the originator of what is known as the Modified Gap Theory (see: Clayton, 1976a, pp. 147-148; Thompson, 1977, pp. 188-194; McIver, 1988, 8[3]:22; Jackson and Thompson, 1992, pp. 115-130).

Since John Clayton routinely propagates the view in his writings and lectures that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old—the standard evolutionary estimate—he must, in some fashion, accommodate the Genesis creation account to this concept (see Clayton, 1990b, p. 130). Here, in his own words, is how his Modified Gap Theory attempts to make such an accommodation possible.


Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. No time element is given and no details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could have taken place in no time at all, or God may have used eons of time to accomplish his objectives. I suggest that all geological phenomena except the creation of warm-blooded life were accomplished during this time. There was no way God could have described amoebas, bacteria, viris [sic], or dinosaurs to the ancient Hebrew, and yet these forms of life were vital to the coal, oil and gas God knew man would need. Thus God created these things but did not describe them just as He did not describe a majority of the 110 million species of life on this planet. Changes took place in the Earth (but no gap destruction) until God began the formation of man’s world with birds, whales, cattle and man in the literal days of Genesis (Clayton, 1976a, pp. 147-148, emp. added).
In his Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, he elaborated on what this means.


Not only does the first verse give us the creation of celestial objects, but of a functional earth itself.... By the end of Genesis 1:1 there was a functional, living, working earth. If you had stood upon the earth at this point in time, you would have recognized it. Let us once again remind you that how long God chose to use to accomplish this creation is not revealed in this passage.... It is very possible that a living ecosystem operated in Genesis 1:1 to produce the earth. Bacteria may have swarmed in the oceans and giant plants may have lived in great swamps. Dinosaurs may have roamed freely accomplishing their purpose in being. The purpose of all of this would have been to prepare the earth for man. This living ecosystem would have produced the coal, oil, gas, and the like, as well as providing the basis of man’s ultimate food supply! (1990c, pp. 3,4, emp. added).
Thus, in capsule form, Clayton suggests that when the Bible says God “created,” what it really means is that, over eons of time, God “prepared” an Earth for man. Additionally, God did not create everything to exist on that “first” Earth. For example, according to the Modified Gap Theory there were no warm-blooded creatures. And, since man is warm-blooded, naturally, he was not there either. Clayton has written:


I submit to you that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary verse. It is a record of God’s action which produced an Earth ready for man’s use. I further submit for your consideration that some time may be involved in this verse and that natural processes may have been used as well as miraculous ones to prepare the Earth for man (1982, p. 5, emp. added).
Mr. Clayton also has provided an explanation as to why man was not a part of this original creation, according to his theory:


The week described in Exodus refers to the week described in Genesis 1:5-31. The week in Genesis 1:5-31 describes the creation of man and a few forms with which man is familiar, but it is not a total description of every living thing that does [sic] or ever has existed on Earth (1976b, pp. 5-6, emp. in orig.).
Exodus 20:11, however, explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week. John Clayton begs to differ—with both God and His inspired writer, Moses—and asserts that many things had been created (during vast epochs of time) long before the creation week ever started. Since, as I already have discussed, Clayton does not believe that Exodus 20:11 refers to all of the creative activity of God, but instead refers only to that which occurred in Genesis 1:5-31, he has suggested that Moses “avoids the creation question and concentrates on his own purpose” (1976b, p. 5, emp. added). Placed into chart form by Clayton himself, a summary of the Modified Gap Theory looks like this:



A Response and Refutation

Whenever John Clayton is challenged regarding the Modified Gap Theory, his usual response is to cloud the issue by suggesting that he does not accept the standard Gap Theory (which no one accused him of advocating in the first place). He has said, for example: “I would like to emphasize that I do not in any way, shape, or form embrace the Gap Theory” (1980b). Yet, in his lecture, Evolution’s Proof of God, he stated: “In Genesis 1:2 I’m told by the Hebrew scholars that the most accurate reading is that the earth ‘became without form and void’ and some have suggested that maybe a tremendous number of years passed between the first part of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2” (n.d.[c], emp. added). I wonder—what would the average person call that “tremendous number of years” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? A “gap” perhaps?

John Clayton’s “private theology” is replete with unscriptural concepts, discrepancies, and contradictions that bear examination. Notice—according to his chart—that the “creation week” does not commence until Genesis 1:14ff. Since this section of Genesis 1 has to do only with the events of day four and afterward, Clayton’s “week” of creative activity has only three days! Furthermore, Clayton’s Modified Gap Theory suggests that during the eons of time prior to the creation week God was building up a “resource ecosystem” by the use of amoebas, bacteria, water, plants, dinosaurs, etc. (see the chart below). Yet at other times, while attempting to defend his Modified Gap Theory, Clayton has contended that, in his opinion, the “most accurate reading” of Genesis 1:2 is that the Earth “became without form and void” (n.d.[c]). Which is it? Was the Earth generating or degenerating during this period? Obviously, it cannot be both.

Earlier, I quoted Clayton as suggesting that in Exodus 20:11 Moses “avoids the creation question and concentrates on his own purpose” (1976b, p. 5, emp. added). This is a careless comment indeed. The purpose of Moses’ statement was not merely to establish the Sabbath law; it also was to provide an explanation as to the reason for that law. Exactly why were the Israelites commanded to observe the Sabbath? Because in six days God created the Earth and its creatures and on the seventh day rested. To state that Moses “avoids the creation question” is wrong. The divine writer did not avoid a reference to the Creator; “Jehovah” is specified. Nor did he avoid referring to the Lord’s action; he noted that God “made” these things.

The Modified Gap Theory flatly contradicts Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1. For example, Clayton has argued that the creation of fish (cold-blooded creatures) occurred in Genesis 1:1 (1976a, pp. 147-148), whereas according to Moses they were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20-23). The Genesis record states that creeping things (which would include both insects and reptiles) were brought into existence on the sixth day (1:21,24), but the Modified Gap Theory places them in the time period before the creation week. John Clayton simply rearranges the Genesis record to fit his own evolutionary presuppositions—without any regard whatsoever for what God had to say on the matter.

The only way that Clayton can hold to his Modified Gap Theory and his “private theology” is to convince people that his way of translating Genesis is the correct way. He has attempted to do exactly that for thirty years. In order to succeed, he has found it necessary to give people an entirely new vocabulary. This is the case with many false teachers. They realize they never will be able to reach the masses by using correct, biblical terminology, so they invent new terms, or offer drastic reinterpretations of old ones, in an attempt to make their ideas appear respectable.

The Modified Gap Theory, with its accompanying off-beat brand of theistic evolution, rests upon the (mis)interpretation of two Hebrew words, bara and asah, employed in Genesis 1-2. Here is what Clayton has said about them, and why they are so important to his theory.


In the Hebrew culture and in the Hebrew language there is a difference between something being created and something being made. The idea of creation involves a miraculous act on the part of God. It is not something that man can do, nor is it something that can occur naturally.... The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 to describe this process is the word bara. As one might expect, this word is not used extensively in the Bible, in fact, it is only used in verses 1, 21, and 27 in Genesis. The other concept in the Hebrew culture and in the Hebrew language that is used in reference to things coming into existence involves the process of producing something naturally. The idea is that something came into existence because of planning, wisdom, and intelligence, but not as a miraculous act of God. Many times acts of men are described in this way. The Hebrew word asah is the main Hebrew word translated this way in Genesis 1. It is vital to a proper understanding of Genesis that these two words not be confused because much understanding is lost and considerable contradiction with the scientific evidence is generated when the words are not distinguished from each other (1991, pp. 6-7).
Clayton also has written:


We have pointed out that the Hebrew word bara normally means to create something out of nothing while the word asah usually implies the re-shaping of something that was already in existence.... [T]he normal use of the word bara and the normal use of the word asah are distinctly different and this difference is important in one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 (1979, pp. 2-5).
The following detailed summary from John Clayton’s own writings should clarify why this distinction is so important to the success of his Modified Gap Theory.


God initiated the Big Bang, and the Universe developed according to evolutionary theories (Clayton, 1991, p. 8).

The initial creation (bara) included such things as the Sun, Moon, Earth, stars, etc. (Clayton, 1991, p. 8). [As I have discussed previously, Clayton puts certain living creatures in this “prehistoric” period (including such things as dinosaurs, bacteria, etc.), but no warm-blooded animals or men.]

Sometime after the initial creation, God then began to form and make (asah) things. As Clayton has stated: “It is important to recognize that this process of creating...is described in Genesis 1:1-3. Verse 4ff. deal with something all together [sic] different—the making, forming, and shaping of the created earth. Creation does not occur again until animal life is described in verses 20 and 21” (1991, pp. 8-9).

Beginning in the time period called Day 5, God allegedly began to make new things (Clayton, 1991, p. 9), which presumably would include marine life, birds, and man, but would exclude light, oceans, atmosphere, dry land, planets, stars, moons, and beasts of the field—all of which supposedly were “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1.

Man’s spiritual part then was created (bara) in God’s image (1:27), and his physical part was formed (yatsar not bara) from the dust of the ground (Clayton, 1991, p. 9).

By the end of Genesis 1, God’s “creating” and “making” were complete, but “there is no indication in the Bible that the seventh day ever ended” (Clayton, 1990a, p. 11).
Here, now, is what is wrong with all of this. First, the alleged distinction between bara and asah is as artificial as it is stilted—and Clayton has admitted as much. In the May 1979 issue of the Does God Exist? journal that he edits, he wrote:


Because there are a few isolated exceptions where the context seems to indicate that the word bara or asah has been used in a different way than the application we have just discussed, there are those who maintain that one cannot scripturally maintain the applications of these words as we have presented them in reference to Genesis 1. The Hebrew language, as most of us recognize, is a language which can be interpreted only in its context (1979, p. 4, emp. added).
Clayton also has confessed: “Some may object to this superliteral interpretation of bara and asah by responding that there are exceptions to the usages I have described in the previous paragraphs. Such a criticism is valid” (1990d, p. 3, emp. added).

Second, Clayton’s “few isolated exceptions” are neither few nor isolated. Furthermore, they obliterate his artificial distinction in regard to bara and asah (which often are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament and do not always have the strict interpretation that Clayton has placed on them). Notice the following.

(1) Clayton has suggested: “As one might expect, this word [bara—BT] is not used extensively in the Bible, in fact, it is only used in verses 1, 21, and 27 in Genesis” (1991, pp. 6-7). This statement is completely untrue. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance cites no fewer than 11 instances of bara in the book of Genesis. Additionally, bara and its derivatives occur 40 times in the Old Testament apart from Genesis. In over 30 instances, it means “create, shape, form, or fashion.”

(2) Clayton has insisted—according to the rules of his “new vocabulary”—that the word bara always must mean “to create something from nothing” (1990a, p. 7). This, too, is incorrect, as Morris has noted:


The Hebrew words for “create” (bara) and for “make” (asah) are very often used quite interchangeably in Scripture, at least when God is the one referred to as creating or making. Therefore, the fact that bara is used only three times in Genesis 1 (vv. 1, 21, and 27) certainly does not imply that the other creative acts, in which “made” or some similar expression is used, were really only acts of restoration. For example, in Genesis 1:21, God “created” the fishes and birds; in 1:25, He “made” the animals and creeping things. In verse 26, God speaks of “making” man in His own image. The next verse states that God “created” man in His own image. No scientific or exegetical ground exists for distinction between the two processes, except perhaps a matter of grammatical emphasis.... Finally, the summary verse (Genesis 2:3) clearly says that all of God’s works, both of “creating” and “making” were completed with the six days, after which God “rested” (1966, p. 32, emp. in orig.).
Clayton’s insistence that bara always must mean “to create something from nothing,” is, quite simply, wrong. Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch concluded that when bara appears in its basic form, as it does in Genesis 1,


...it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (ver. 27, ch. v. 1,2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Numbers xvi.30) or of that of grace (Ex. xxxiv.10; Ps. li.10, etc.) [1971, 1:47, first emp. in orig.; last emp. added].
Furthermore, the Old Testament contains numerous examples which prove beyond doubt that bara and asah are used interchangeably. For example, in Psalm 148:1-5, the writer spoke of the “creation” (bara) of the angels. But when Nehemiah wrote of that same event (9:6), he employed the word asah to describe it. In Genesis 1:1, the text speaks of God “creating” (bara) the Earth. Yet when Nehemiah spoke of that same event (9:6), he employed the word asah. When Moses wrote of the “creation” of man, he used bara (Genesis 1:27). But in the previous verse, he spoke of the “making” (asah) of man. Moses also employed the two words in the same verse (Genesis 2:4) when he said: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that Jehovah made [asah] earth and heaven.”

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Arthur, Kay (1999), “The Overlapping of the Patriarchs’ Lives,” Genesis: Becoming the Friend of a Faithful God (Chattanooga, TN: Precept Ministries).

Clayton, John N. (no date-a), “Biblical Misconceptions and the Theory of Evolution,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 4.

Clayton, John N. (no date-b), “The History of Man on Planet Earth,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 8.

Clayton, John N. (no date-c), Evolution’s Proof of God (taped lecture).

Clayton, John N. (1976a), The Source (South Bend, IN: privately published by author).

Clayton, John N. (1976b), “ ‘Flat Earth’ Bible Study Techniques,” Does God Exist?, 3[10]:2-7, October.

Clayton, John N. (1979), “The Necessity of Creation—Biblically and Scientifically,” Does God Exist?, 6[5]:2-5, May.

Clayton, John N. (1980a), “Is the Age of the Earth Related to a ‘Literal Interpretation’ of Genesis?,” Does God Exist?, 7[1]:3-8, January.

Clayton, John N. (1980b), “A Response to Evolutionary Creationism” (taped lecture).

Clayton, John N. (1982), “Where Are the Dinosaurs?,” Does God Exist?, 9[10]:2-6, October.

Clayton, John N. (1990a), “One Week Creation—of Man or of God?,” Does God Exist?, 17[4]:5-12, July/August.

Clayton, John N. (1990b), The Source (South Bend, IN: privately published by author).

Clayton, John N. (1990c), “The History of the Earth,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 9.

Clayton, John N. (1990d), “How Did God Create Man?,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 7.

Clayton, John N. (1991), “Creation Versus Making—A Key to Genesis 1,” Does God Exist?, 18[1]:6-10, January/February.

Custance, Arthur (1967), The Genealogies of the Bible, Doorway Paper #24 (Ottawa, Canada: Doorway Papers).

England, Donald (1983), A Scientist Examines Faith and Evidence (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Francella, Kevin (1981), “Former Atheist Says Bible and Evolutionism Are Compatible,” The Sunday Press, Binghamton, New York, May 17.

Green, William H. (1890), “Primeval Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 47:294-295, April.

Jackson, Wayne (1978), “The Antiquity of Human History,” Words of Truth, 14[18]:1, April 14.

Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin: A Review of the Teachings of John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Jordan, James (1979), “The Biblical Chronology Question—[Part I]” Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15, Winter.

Jordan, James (1980), “The Biblical Chronology Question—[Part II]” Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 2[3]:17-26, Spring.

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1971 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. and J.D. Douglas, eds. (1982), The New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale), second edition.

McIver, Tom (1988), “Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism,” Creation/Evolution, 8[3]:1-24, Fall.

Morris, Henry M. (1966), Studies in the Bible and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Thompson, Bert (1977), Theistic Evolution (Shreveport, LA: Lambert).

Thompson, Bert (1995), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Moose75

In their attempts to define and defend the Modified Gap Theory (or, for that matter, the standard Gap Theory), proponents insist that there are two Hebrew words [bara (create), and asah (make)] that always must be employed in a completely different sense and never may be used interchangeably. This distinction is vital in order to allow the idea that God “created” some things instantaneously by divine fiat but “made” others slowly via naturalistic processes during the alleged “gap” of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Yet the one Bible verse that never has been addressed—much less answered—by proponents of these theories is Nehemiah 9:6.


Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made [asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
The following quotation from Weston W. Fields will explain why.


...in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God’s making (asa) include the heavens, the host of heavens, and the earth, and everything contained in and on it, and the seas and everything they contain, as well as the hosts of heaven (probably angels).

Now this is a very singular circumstance, for those who argue for the distinctive usage of asa throughout Scripture must, in order to maintain any semblance of consistency, never admit that the same creative acts can be referred to by both the verb bara and the verb asa. Thus, since Genesis 1:1 says that God created (bara) the heavens and the earth, and Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 contend that he made (asa) them, there must be two distinct events in view here. In order to be consistent and at the same time deal with the evidence, gap theorists must postulate a time when God not only “appointed” or “made to appear” the firmament, the sun, the moon and stars, and the beasts, but there also must have been a time when he only appointed the heavens, the heaven of heavens, the angels (hosts), the earth, everything on the earth, the sea and everything in the sea!

So that, while asa is quite happily applied to the firmament, sun, moon, stars, and the beasts, its further application to everything else contained in the universe, and, indeed, the universe itself (which the language in both Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 is intended to convey) creates a monstrosity of interpretation which should serve as a reminder to those who try to fit Hebrew words into English molds, that to strait-jacket these words is to destroy the possibility of coherent interpretation completely! (1976, pp. 61-62, emp. in orig.).
John Whitcomb was correct when he concluded:


These examples should suffice to show the absurdities to which we are driven by making distinctions which God never intended to make. For the sake of variety and fullness of expression (a basic and extremely helpful characteristic of Hebrew literature), different verbs are used to convey the concept of supernatural creation. It is particularly clear that whatever shade of meaning the rather flexible verb made (asah) may bear in other contexts of the Old Testament, in the context of Genesis 1 it stands as a synonym for created (bara) [1972, p. 129, parentheses and emp. in orig.].
Further, there is clear and compelling evidence which shows that some of those who advocate either the Gap Theory or the Modified Gap Theory realize that their attempts to make bara represent only that “which has been created from nothing” are both ill-advised and incorrect. Genesis 1:27 is the passage that reveals the error of such an interpretation: “So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” If the assertion is correct that bara can be used only to describe something created from nothing, then the obvious conclusion is that in Genesis 1:27 God created man and woman from nothing. Yet such a view conflicts with Genesis 2:7, which states quite specifically that God formed man from the dust of the ground.

How have proponents of these theories attempted to circumvent such an obvious contradiction? John Clayton, the originator and primary defender of the Modified Gap Theory, has suggested—in keeping with his “new vocabulary”—that Genesis 1:27 really is saying that when God “created” (bara) man, He actually created not man’s body, but his soul from nothing (1991, p. 9). Such a strained interpretation can be proven wrong by a simple examination of the text. Genesis 1:27 states unequivocally what was created—“male and female created he them.” The question then must be asked: Do souls come in “male” and “female” varieties? Of course not. Souls are spirits, and as such are sexless (e.g., as Jesus said angels were—Matthew 22:29-30). Yet those who defend varieties of the Gap Theory advocate a doctrine which implies that male and female souls exist. A well-known principle in elementary logic is that any argument with a false premise (or false premises) is unsound. Thus, the Gap Theory and Modified Gap Theory are unsound.

(3) Taking the creation passages at face value and in their proper context, it is obvious that no distinction is made between the act of creating and the act of making. For example, God’s activity during this first week is described in terms other than creating or making. This includes the phrase, “Let there be,” which is used to usher in each new day and the things created in that day. Also, note that God “divided” the light from the darkness, and He “set” the light-giving objects in the expanse of the sky. How would John Clayton’s new vocabulary deal with these verbs?

(4) There is ample and compelling evidence that the two words bara and asah are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament. Mr. Clayton, of course, adamantly denies that this is the case. He has stated: “It is difficult to believe that there would be two words used to convey the same process” (1990, p. 7). Yet why is it difficult to imagine that two different words might be used to describe exactly the same process? Writers commonly employ different words to describe the same thing(s), thereby providing “stylistic relief ”—a grammatical construct which avoids the needless repetition that occurs by using the same words over and over. For more than a hundred years, conservative scholars have made a similar point to proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, arguing that there is no reasonable way to “dissect” the Old Testament on the basis of the words Elohim (translated “God”) and Yahweh (translated “Jehovah” or “Lord”).

Bible writers often employed different words to describe the same thing(s). For example, in the four Gospels Christ is spoken of as having been killed, crucified, and slain. Where is the distinction? New Testament writers often spoke of the church, the body, and the kingdom—which are exactly the same thing. Where is the difference? Why should anyone find it so difficult to accept that different words may be used to describe the same thing or event?

Furthermore, the Scriptures are replete with examples which prove that bara and asah are used interchangeably. For example, in Psalm 148:1-5 the writer spoke of the “creation” (bara) of the angels. Yet when Nehemiah addressed the creation of angels, he employed the word asah to describe that event (9:6). In Genesis 1:1, as John Clayton has admitted, the text speaks of God “creating” (bara) the Earth. Yet, when Nehemiah spoke of that same event, he employed the word asah to do so (9:6). When Moses wrote of the “creation” of man, he used bara (Genesis 1:27). Yet one verse before that (1:26), he spoke of God “making” (asah) man. Moses even employed the two words in the same verse (Genesis 2:4): “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that Jehovah made [asah] earth and heaven.”

Clayton has said that the Earth was created (bara) from nothing in Genesis 1:1. But Moses said in Genesis 2:4 that the Earth was made (asah). Clayton is on record as stating that the use of asah can refer only to that which is made from something already in existence. Does he therefore believe that when Moses spoke of the Earth being “made,” it was formed from something already in existence?

And what about Exodus 20:11 in this context? Moses wrote: “For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Clayton has written that this speaks only of God’s “forming” from something already in existence. But notice that the verse specifically speaks of the heavens, the Earth, the seas, and all that in them is. Does Clayton thus contend that God formed the heavens from something already in existence? Exodus 20:11 speaks of everything made by God in the six days of creation. Yet Mr. Clayton has admitted that “creation (bara) does not occur again until animal life is described in verses 20 and 21.” How can this be? Moses stated that God “made” (asah) everything in the creation week. Now Clayton says there was “creation” (bara) going on in that same week. Even John Clayton, therefore, has admitted that there are times when the two words describe the same events during the same time period!

(5) Weston Fields observed that forcing bara and asah to refer to completely separate acts results in a “monstrosity of interpretation”—which is exactly what John Clayton’s suggested usage of these words represents. Clayton teaches that at the end of Genesis 1:1 there existed a fully functional Earth (complete with various kinds of life teeming on it) and that it remained that way for eons of time. If that is the case—based on his bara/asah argument—how would he explain the following problem?

Clayton has taught that the “heavenly bodies” (Sun, Moon, stars, etc.) were a part of the bara-type creation of Genesis 1:1. But Exodus 20:11 specifically states that they were “made” (asah). Are we to believe, then, that they were both “created” and “made”? Yes, that is exactly what Clayton has advocated.


Applied in this literal sense to Genesis 1, one would find that the heaven and earth were brought into existence miraculously in Genesis 1:1. This would include the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, black holes, nebula, comets, asteroids and planets.... Verses 14-19 would not describe the creation of the sun, moon and stars, but the reshaping or rearranging of them to a finished form (1989, p. 6).
How were the Sun, Moon, and stars (“created,” Clayton says, in Genesis 1:1) assisting the Earth in being “fully functional” when they themselves had not even been “rearranged to a finished form”? One hardly could have a fully functional Earth without the Sun and Moon. Yet by his own admission, Genesis 1:14-19 speaks of God doing something to those heavenly bodies. For centuries Bible scholars have accepted that it is in these verses that God is described as bringing the heavenly bodies into existence. But no, says Clayton, that is not true. They were in existence from Genesis 1:1, but they apparently had not yet been “rearranged to a finished form”—something that would not occur until billions of years later. How could these unfinished heavenly bodies have been of any use to a finished Earth? How could the Earth be “functional” unless the Sun, Moon, and other planets were “functional” as well? And if they were “functional” in Genesis 1:1, why “rearrange” them?

Clayton is on record as stating: “When we look at those places where the word ‘make’ is used, the context leaves absolutely no doubt about what the intention of the author is for that passage” (1979, p. 5). I could not agree more. There is absolutely no doubt about how the Bible writers employed these words. They used them just as any author would employ them—interchangeably.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

In any discussion of the Bible and the age of the Earth, there are several additional considerations that should be examined.

“From the Beginning of the Creation”/“From the Creation of the World”

In Mark 10:6, Jesus declared concerning Adam and Eve: “But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.” Christ thus dated the first humans from the creation week. The Greek word for “beginning” is arché, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The word in the Greek for “creation” is ktiseos, and denotes “the sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.). In addressing this point, Wayne Jackson wrote:


Unquestionably this language puts humankind at the very dawn of creation. To reject this clear truth, one must contend that: (a) Christ knew the Universe was in existence billions of years prior to man, but accommodating Himself to the ignorance of His generation, deliberately misrepresented the situation; or, (b) The Lord, living in pre-scientific times, was uninformed about the matter (despite the fact that He was there as Creator—John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Either of these allegations is a reflection upon the Son of God and is blasphemous (1989, pp. 25-26).
Furthermore, Paul affirmed the following:


For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20, emp. added).
The apostle declared that from the creation of the world the invisible things of God have been: (a) clearly seen; and (b) perceived. The phrase, “since the creation of the world,” translates the Greek, apo ktiseos kosmou. As a preposition, apo is used “to denote the point from which something begins” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 86). The term “world” is from the Greek, kosmos, and refers to “the orderly universe” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 446). The term “perceived” translates the Greek noeo, which is used to describe rational, human intelligence. The phrase, “clearly seen” is an intensified form of horao, a word that “gives prominence to the discerning mind” (Thayer, 1962, p 452). Both “perceived” and “clearly seen” are present tense forms, and as such denote “the continued manifestation of the being and perfections of God, by the works of creation from the beginning” (MacKnight, 1960, p. 58).

Who perceived the things that were made “from the beginning” of the creation? If no man was there for billions of years (because man “is a relative newcomer to the Earth”), who was observing—with human intelligence—these phenomena? There can be no doubt that Paul was teaching that man has existed since the creation of the world and has possessed the capacity to comprehend the truth regarding the existence of the Creator; accordingly, those who refuse to glorify Him are without excuse. It likewise is inexcusable for one who professes to believe the Bible as God’s inspired Word to wrest such verses merely to defer to evolutionary geology. Yet examples of that very thing are all too prevalent.

During my debate with Jack Wood Sears on the age of the Earth, I asked him to explain Christ’s comments in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4 that “from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” Astonishingly, Dr. Sears suggested that neither passage addressed the creation of the world but instead meant “from the time of the creation of man and woman.” Were that the case, these passages would have the Lord saying, “From the beginning of the creation (of man and woman), man and woman created he them.” The Son of God was not in the habit of talking in such nonsensical terms. Furthermore, Mark plainly wrote about “the beginning of the creation,” not “their creation.” Christ’s point is crystal clear, especially when connected to Paul’s comment in Romans 1:20-21 that someone with rational, human intelligence was “perceiving” the things that had been created. Riegle was right when he suggested: “It is amazing that men will accept long, complicated, imaginative theories and reject the truth given to Moses by the Creator Himself ” (1962, p. 24).

“From the Blood of Abel”

In Luke 11:45-52, the account is recorded of the Lord rebuking the rebellious Jews of His day. He charged them with following in the footsteps of their ancestors, foretold the horrible destruction that was yet to befall them, and announced that upon them would come “the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world.” Then, with emphatic linguistic parallelism (so often characteristic of Hebrew expression), He added, “from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah.” Jesus therefore placed the murder of Abel near the “foundation of the world.” Granted, Abel’s death occurred some years after the creation, but it was close enough to that event for the Lord to state that it was associated with “the foundation of the world.” If the world came into existence several billion years before the first family, how could the shedding of human blood be declared by God’s Son to extend back to the “foundation of the world”?

Those who opt for an old-Earth scenario believe, of course, that man is a “recent addition” to the Earth—a “johnny-come-lately” who has been here only 3 million years or so out of an alleged Earth history of 4.6 billion years. Apparently, however, they are not obtaining their information from the same source as the prophet Isaiah who asked the people of his day, “Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?” (40:21, emp. added). Isaiah understood that man had been on the Earth “from the beginning” or, as he stressed, “from the foundations” of the Earth. Sad, is it not, that so many people today who claim to believe the Bible refuse to acknowledge that simple, scriptural fact?

How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

On occasion, those who defend the concept of an ancient Earth suggest that it is impossible to know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden and that untold years may have elapsed during that time period. Consider two popular arguments that frequently are offered in support of such a theory.

First, John Clayton has suggested that since a part of God’s curse on Eve was that He was going to multiply her pain in childbirth (Genesis 3:16), she must have given birth to numerous children in the garden or God’s curse would have meant nothing to her. How could God “multiply” something that she never had experienced in the first place? Furthermore, Clayton has lamented, rearing children is a process that requires considerable time, thereby allowing for the possibility that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for an extended period prior to being evicted after their sin. As Clayton has written: “Every evidence we have biblically indicates that mankind’s beginning in the Garden of Eden was not a short period which involved one man and one woman” (1980, p. 5, emp. added).

The second argument (somewhat related to the first) suggests that Adam and Eve must have inhabited the garden for quite some time because after they left, it was said of Cain that “he builded a city” (Genesis 4:17). To quote Clayton, that is something “which you cannot do with you and your wife” (1980, p. 5). In other words, Cain had to have a large enough family to help him build “a city.” That, it is said, would have taken a lot of time.

Truth be told, every piece of biblical evidence we possess proves conclusively that mankind could not have been in the garden very long. Consider the following.

First, regardless of what defenders of an ancient Earth may wish were true, the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible sets an outer limit on the amount of time that man could have inhabited the Garden of Eden. Genesis 5:5 states clearly that “all the days that Adam lived were 930 years.” We know, of course, that“ days” and “years” already were being counted by the time of Adam’s creation because in Genesis 1:14 (day four of creation) God mentioned both in His discussion of their relationship to the heavenly bodies. Therefore, however long Adam and Eve may have been in the garden, one thing is for sure: they were not there for a time period that exceeded Adam’s life span (930 years). Additionally, a certain portion of man’s life was spent outside the Garden of Eden due to his sin against God—thereby reducing even further the portion of the 930 years that could have been spent in the garden setting.

Second, surely it is not inconsequential that all the children of Adam and Eve mentioned in the Bible were born outside the Garden of Eden. Not a single conception or birth is mentioned as having taken place while Adam and Eve lived in the garden (see Genesis 4:1 for the first mention of any conception or birth—only after the couple’s expulsion from Eden). Follow closely the importance and logic of this argument, which may be stated as follows.

One of the commands given to Adam and Eve was that they “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth” (Genesis 1:28). In other words, Adam and Eve were to reproduce. But what is sin? Sin is: (a) doing what God said not to do; or (b) not doing what God said to do. Up until the time that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), had they sinned? No, they still were in a covenant relationship with God. Since that is the case, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Adam and Eve were doing what God had commanded them to do—reproducing. Yet, I repeat, the only conceptions and births of which we have any record occurred outside the garden! In other words, apparently Adam and Eve were not even in the garden long enough for Eve to conceive, much less give birth.

Third, while the Bible does not provide a specific time regarding how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, it could not have been very long because Christ Himself, referring to the curse of death upon the human family, said that the devil “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Satan and his ignominious band of outlaws (“sons of the evil one”—Matthew 13:38) have worked their ruthless quackery on mankind from the moment the serpent met Eve in the Garden of Eden. When he and his cohorts rebelled and “kept not their proper habitation,” they were cast from the heavenly portals to be “kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Satan’s anger at having been defeated fueled his determination to strike back in revenge.

And who better to serve as the recipient of his indignation than man—the only creature in the Universe made “in the image and likeness of God“ (Genesis 1:26-27)? As Rex A. Turner Sr. observed: “Satan cannot attack God directly, thus he employs various methods to attack man, God’s master creation” (1980, p. 89). What sweet revenge—despoiling the zenith of God’s creative genius! Little wonder that the apostle Peter described Satan as an adversary who, “as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

Now—knowing what the Scriptures tell us about Satan’s origin, attitude, and mission—is it sensible to suggest that he would take his proverbial time, and twiddle his figurative thumbs, while he allowed Adam and Eve to revel in the covenant relationship they enjoyed with their Maker (read Genesis 3:8 about how God walked with them in the garden “in the cool of the day”)? Would he simply “leave them alone for a long period of time” so that they could conceive, give birth to, and rear children in the luscious paradise known as the Garden of Eden? Is this how a hungry, stalking lion would view its prey—by watching admiringly from afar, allowing it thousands (or millions!) of years of fulfilled joy and affording it time to conceive, give birth to, and raise a family? Hardly—which is why Christ described Satan as a murderer “from the beginning.” Satan was angry and filled with a thirst for revenge. What better way to satisfy that thirst than by introducing sin into God’s otherwise perfect world?

What may be said, then, about the suggestion that Adam and Eve must have been in the garden for an extended time period because God said that He was going to “multiply” Eve’s pain. How could He “multiply” something that she never had experienced? This quibble can be answered quite easily. Does a person have to “experience” something before that something can be “multiplied”? Suppose I said, “I’m going to give you $100.” You eagerly stick out your hand to receive the $100 bill that I am holding in mine. But, as you reach, I pull back my hand and say, “No, I’ve changed my mind; I’m going to give you $1,000 instead!” Did you actually have to possess or “experience” the $100 bill before I could increase it to $1,000? Of course not! The fact that God said He intended to “multiply” Eve’s pain in childbirth does not mean necessarily that Eve had to have experienced some pain before God’s decree that she would experience more pain. God’s point was merely this: “Eve, you were going to experience pain in childbirth, but because of your sin, now you will experience even more pain.” The fact that Eve never had experienced any childbirth pain up to that point does not mean that she could not experience even more pain later as a part of her penalty for having sinned against God.

Lastly, what about John Clayton’s idea that Adam and Eve must have been in the Garden for an extended period of time because when they left Cain and his wife “builded a city” (Genesis 4:17). Clayton has lamented that this is something “which you cannot do with you and your wife” (1980, p. 5). Such an observation would be correct, of course, if the city under consideration were a modern metroplex. But that is not the case here.

The Hebrew word for city is quite broad in its meaning and may refer to anything from a sprawling village to a tiny encampment. Literally, the term means “place of look-out, especially as it was fortified.” In discussing Genesis 4:17, Old Testament commentator John Willis observed: “However, a ‘city’ is not necessarily a large, impressive metropolis, but may be a small unimposing village of relatively few inhabitants” (1979, p. 155). Apply some common sense here. What would it be more likely for the Bible to suggest that Cain and his wife constructed (considering who they were and where they were living)—a bustling metropolis or a Bedouin tent city. To ask is to answer, is it not? To this very day, Bedouin tent cities are commonplace in that particular area of the world. And, as everyone will admit, two boy scouts can erect a tent, so it does not strain credulity to suggest that likely Cain and his wife were able to accomplish such a task as well.

The Doctrine of Apparent Age

On occasion, the comment is overheard, “But the Earth looks so old.” There are at least two responses that might be made to such a statement. First, one might ask, “Compared to what; what does a young Earth look like?” Who among us has anything with which to compare? Second, we should not be surprised if certain methods in science appear to support the idea of an ancient Earth. Why? The answer lies in the “doctrine of apparent age” (also known as the “doctrine of mature creation”).

This concept states that when God created “heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11), they were made perfect, complete, and ready for habitation by mankind and the multiple forms of plant and animal life. God did not create immature forms (although He certainly could have done so, had He wished), but matureones. Rather than creating an acorn, for example, He created an oak. Rather than creating an egg, He created a chicken. Rather than creating Adam and Eve as infants, He created them as post-pubescent beings. We know this to be true because one of the commands God gave each living thing shortly after its creation was that it should reproduce “after its kind.” This very command, in fact, was given to Adam and Eve while they still were in the Garden of Eden, prior to their sin and expulsion.

How old were Adam and Eve two seconds after their creation? They were two seconds old. How old were the plants and animals two seconds after their creation? They were two seconds old. But how old did all of these two-second-old people, plants, and animals look like they were? Trevor Major has commented:


So Adam, for example, had the look and the capability of a full-grown man on the first Sabbath, even though he had lived only one day. Thus, according to the doctrine of mature creation, all living things were created in a mature state, with only the appearance of age (1989, p. 16, emp. in orig.).
It is important to realize that the initial creation had two ages—one literal, one apparent. It literally may have been one day old, two days old, three days old, and so on. But it appeared to be much older.

The biblical record provides additional information concerning the accuracy of the doctrine of apparent age. In Genesis 1:14, God told Moses that the heavenly bodies (e.g., Sun, Moon, stars) were to be “for signs and for seasons, for days and for years.” In order for them to be useful to man for the designation of signs, seasons, days, and years, such heavenly bodies must have been visible. Thus, when God created them He made their light rays already visible from the Earth. The psalmist exclaimed: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (19:1). There was, therefore, purpose behind God’s mature creation.

First, the Earth was prepared in a mature state so that man would find it suitable for habitation. Since Christ specifically stated that man and woman had been on the Earth “since the beginning of the creation” (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6), it was critical “from the beginning” that the Earth be “finished.” Second, once man found himself in such a home (called “very good”—denoting perfection—in Genesis 1:31), it was only right to give honor and glory to the Creator Who designed and built such a magnificent edifice. This explains why Paul, in Romans 1:20ff., suggested that God’s “everlasting power and divinity” had been seen by mankind “from the creation of the world,” and why those who refused to honor God would be “without excuse.”

Even the miracles of the Bible reflect the principle of “apparent age.” When Christ fed the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13-21), the young boy present on that occasion had but a few loaves and fishes. Yet Christ “multiplied” them to feed over 5,000 men alone. Major addressed this concept when he wrote:


Thousands of loaves were distributed for which the barley had not been sown, harvested, or milled, and which had never been mixed into dough and baked in an oven. Equally amazing, thousands of dried fishes were handed out which neither had grown from an egg nor been caught in a fishermen’s net. Everything was there in a prepared form, ready to eat by the recipients of this great wonder.

The miracle of creation was also achieved in a relative instant, producing an effect which could have only a supernatural cause. In the first chapter of Genesis, God created trees and grasses, not just their seeds. He created birds which could already fly, not eggs or even chicks. He created fish which could already swim, not fish eggs. He created cattle, not calves. And He created man and woman, not boy and girl. Speaking to these animals, and to these people, God commanded: “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:22,28). Notice that the plants and animals began to multiply according to their own kind almost straightaway (1:11,24). Immature organisms could not have reproduced, and in any case, would have perished in the absence of their adult forms (1989, 27[10]:16).
The moment God created matter itself, would it not have appeared “mature”? If God had created Adam as a baby, how could He have made a baby that did not look like it had gone through a nine-month gestation period? If He had created an acorn, how could He have created an acorn that did not look like it had fallen from a mighty oak? Did God create the Earth “mature”? How could He have done otherwise?

However, we must be careful not to abuse this concept. Some have asked if the Creator might have placed fossils (or fossil fuels) in the Earth to make it “appear” ancient. Such an idea should be rejected because it is an indictment of God—Who never would try to “trick” or “fool” man in such a way. Nor would He ever lie (Titus 1:2). If we see things in the Earth like fossils, fossil fuels, etc., we naturally (and rightly) assume that these are the results of real plants and/or animals that actually lived. It will not do for us to say, “God just put them there,” for such a suggestion makes God deceptive, which He is not. As Major has stated: “Tactics of confusion and deception hardly belong to a Creator Who would have humanity discern Him by His creation (Romans 1:20)” [1989, 27[10]:16].

Others have suggested that if God created things to appear older than they really are, that is deceptive on the face of it. Thus, by definition the doctrine of apparent age makes God a liar and should be rejected on that count alone. However, such an accusation ignores the fact that God told us what He did! Anyone who examines Genesis 1-2 can read within those chapters God’s methodology. In fact, He made certain that we were told how the Earth and its inhabitants came into existence. Perhaps—just perhaps—if God had not told us what He did, then He might be accused of deception. But no one can accuse God (justifiably) of such despicable behavior because His Word explains His actions. He did not hide the real facts from us but, quite the contrary, went to great lengths to reveal them.

Some have suggested that one of the most difficult questions relating to the doctrine of apparent age has to do with the starlight that is seen from the Earth. The argument usually goes something like this. We know that light travels at a speed slightly in excess of 186,000 miles per second. The time it takes light to travel one year is referred to as a light-year. Yet we are able to see light from stars that are millions of light-years away. How can this be if the Earth is young (with an age measured in thousands, not billions, of years)? Of course, a partial answer lies in the fact that God created the light from the original heavenly bodies already en route and visible to the Earth’s inhabitants. Without that light, the night sky would lack patterns necessary for the signs, seasons, days, and years specified so clearly in Genesis 1:14, and mankind would not have been able to see God’s “glory and handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

Other issues may be involved as well, a discussion of which (e.g., the possibility that the speed of light has diminished over time, etc.) has been provided by various writers (see: Norman and Setterfield, 1987; Major, 1987; Ex Nihilo, 1984; Humphreys, 1994). The reader interested in a discussion of these matters is referred to these sources and others that they may recommend. Such a discussion is beyond the purview of this article, however, since it has to do more with scientific matters than biblical.

CONCLUSION

There are many people who accept unreservedly the Bible’s teaching on matters of both a spiritual and a physical nature. They do not believe in evolution, and defend as genuine the Bible’s instruction regarding such topics as its own inspiration, Christ’s deity, and the importance of the church. They acknowledge that God “has granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). And, to the very best of their ability, they live “soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:12). Yet when it comes to the Bible’s teaching on the age of the Earth, they simply shrug their shoulders (as if they do not quite know what to do with the information) and are content to take a somewhat “agnostic” stance in regard to the biblical information on this crucial topic. Apparently, they are undecided about what to do with the Bible’s teachings in this area, especially since “science” seems to be offering them a conclusion diametrically opposed to the one dictated by the Bible. In the end, for whatever reason(s), “science” wins as they set aside biblical instruction in favor of current scientific theory.

But why is this the case? The Bible does address the topic of the age of the Earth, as our discussion here amply documents. If a person is willing to accept the Bible’s instructions on its own inspiration, God’s existence, Christ’s deity, the need to live a decent, honest, moral life, and hundreds of other topics that deal not just with godliness but with “life and godliness,” why, then, can that same person not accept the Bible’s simple, straightforward teaching on the age of the Earth? Is one set of instructions any more difficult to believe than the other? Our plea is for such Bible believers to be consistent and to abandon the concept of an ancient Earth that is so foreign to the Scriptures. Accept all that the Bible has to say—including its plain statements and clear implications regarding the age of the Earth.

No doubt there also are many Bible believers who simply do not know what to do regarding the problem of the age of the Earth. They “lean” toward belief in an old Earth, but only because they never have stopped to consider that one of the the most compelling reasons for belief in an old Earth is to legitimize the concept of evolution (without an ancient planet, evolution obviously is impossible). But were someone to ask, “Do you believe in evolution?,” their answer likely would be, “No, I do not.” Then why believe in an old Earth? Why not simply examine what the Bible says regarding the age of the Earth and accept it forthwith? On occasion, the person who starts out conceding an ancient Earth eventually ends up in the evolutionists’ camp. At some point, he or she is led to think: If the Earth really is billions of years old, then perhaps evolution has been going on for all that time after all.

How old is the Earth? Biblically speaking, it is five days older than man! Relatively speaking, it is quite young—with an age measured in thousands, not billions, of years. Yet even some Christians have ridiculed such an idea. For example, in his book, Prepare to Answer: A Defense of the Christian Faith, Rubel Shelly has suggested that “Few would argue that the earth is ‘only about 6,000 years old’...,” and that such a position is “not held by responsible apologists” (1990, p. 61). I suggest, however, that such a position is held by “responsible apologists” because the Bible is factual in its clear statements and implied deductions regarding the Earth and man’s history on it. Faithful Christians should not be stampeded into accepting the compromising views of evolutionists—or those sympathetic with them.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Clayton, John N. (1979), “The Necessity of Creation—Biblically and Scientifically,” Does God Exist?, 6[5]:2-5, May.

Clayton, John N. (1980), “Is the Age of the Earth Related to a ‘Literal Interpretation’ of Genesis?,” Does God Exist?, 7[1]:3-8, January.

Clayton, John N. (1989), “How Much Does Modernism Rob Us of Biblical Understanding?,” Does God Exist?, 16[1]:4-7, January/February.

Clayton, John N. (1990), “One Week Creation—Of Man or of God?,” Does God Exist?, 17[4]:5-12, July/August.

Clayton, John N. (1991), “Creation Versus Making—A Key to Genesis 1,” Does God Exist?, 18[1]:6-10, January/February.

Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Dictionary of New Testament Greek (London: T&T Clark).

Ex Nihilo (1984), “Update,” 6[4]:46, May.

Fields, Weston W. (1976), Unformed and Unfilled (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Humphreys, D. Russell (1994), Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Jackson, Wayne (1989), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

MacKnight, James (1960 reprint), Apostolical Epistles (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Major, Trevor (1987), “Questions and Answers,” Reason & Revelation, 7:5-7, February.

Major, Trevor (1989), “Which Came First—The Chicken or the Egg?,” Bible-Science Newsletter, 27[10]:16, October.

Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield (1987), The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Technical Report (Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute International).

Riegle, D.D. (1962), Creation or Evolution? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Shelly, Rubel (1990), Prepare to Answer: A Defense of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Thayer, J.H. (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Turner, Rex A. Sr. (1980), Systematic Theology (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion).

Whitcomb, John C. (1972), The Early Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Willis, John T. (1979), “Genesis,” The Living Word Commentary (Austin, TX: Sweet).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

teamster284

Very intersting Moose75..................... but i think you have way too much frigin time on your hands

ShootStuff88

LoL...

Someone needs to take a course in ALLEGORY.

The earth is now 6000 years old, because the Bible says so...

People who take the Bible this seriously make Christians as a whole look ignorant.

bearklr

LOL...I was going to read those posts but the earth would have been 10,000 years old by the time I finished.

Moose75

I guess you fellas would have a hard time with this as well.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived together? No doubt one of the reasons is due to the fact that for many years, we have been inundated with information—on television, in books, in classrooms, in movies, in magazines, and on all sorts of paraphernalia—suggesting that dinosaurs and humans are separated by 60+ million years of geologic time. Thus, evolutionary scientists (and those who accept their timeline) have constructed a barrier that must be broken down in order to get people to consider the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans.

A second reason why people are uneasy about the idea of dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously on Earth is that in the twenty-first century, mankind is accustomed to thinking that almost all dinosaurs were enormous killing machines. Geologist John Clayton has suggested, for example: (1) “It is ludicrous to suggest that man cohabited with the dinosaurs in an Alley Oop kind of world” (1991, p. 37); and (2) “Man could not have lived in a world full of dinosaurs, so by the time God created Adam the dinosaurs were gone” (1990, p. 14).

People apparently seem to think that dinosaurs would have killed all of the humans by biting them in half with their super-sized teeth, or by hunting them down and cutting them open with five-inch long, sickle-like claws. People think that the large plant eaters would have crushed humans with their massive feet, or smashed them with their huge tails. Humans are just too small, dumb, and scrawny to have lived during the time of the dinosaurs. At least that seems to be the way evolutionary scientists, moviemakers, book writers, and magazine editors portray these “terrible lizards.”

Truly, dinosaurs were remarkable creatures. Some were extremely large. Others were smaller, but with sharp teeth and long claws. Some had big heads, some had giant tails, and some had both. Others were covered with spikes or armored plates. People in general seem to think of them as being almost invincible—animals that lived during a time in which man simply could not have survived. They would have been unapproachable, and certainly, untamable. Right? Just how is it that creationists can reasonably believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived on this Earth together at the same time?

EXTRAORDINARY EXISTING CREATURES
Most people today, it seems, are constantly on the go. Whether man or woman, young or old, with children or without, we (especially in America) are a busy people. Time seems to leave us before we realize we had it. We go to school, attend classes, and learn what we are told. We work hard, and we play hard. But how often do people step back from the hustle and bustle of life, take a deep breath, and think outside of the proverbial box? Consider the topic of dinosaurs. Rather than thinking critically about the possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting on Earth at one time in the past, most students are content to swallow everything a high school teacher or college professor tells them about the “wild world” of dinosaurs. In the classrooms of evolutionary scientists, thinking outside the “evolutionary box” (e.g., questioning whether it is logical to believe in the cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans) is not acceptable conduct.

The truth is, humans live in a world that is home to many incredible creatures. Numerous large animals, some of which are very intimidating, cohabit this Earth with humanity, and have for thousands of years. Man generally shies away from some of these animals. Others, however, he has been able to nurture and tame.


Komodo Dragons are the world’s largest lizards. They can grow to be 10 feet long (almost twice the length of an average human) and can weigh as much as 275 pounds. Still, their short, stocky legs can carry them 15 miles per hour (as fast as most dogs run). After stalking and killing deer, wild boar, and other prey, they devour their dinner in a matter of minutes. Furthermore, these amazing creatures can consume up to 80% of their own weight. A 100-pound Komodo can eat 80 pounds of food in one meal! And, as if that is not enough “bad news” about an animal with which we share this planet, millions of deadly bacteria grow inside its mouth, and make any bite poisonous and potentially fatal. Yet despite its size, sharp teeth, speed, power, poison, and digestive habits, neither this animal, nor any other large reptile (e.g., the anaconda), has kept man from flourishing on Earth.


While continuing to think outside of the “dangerous dinosaur” box, consider the world’s largest land animal with which we share the Earth today—the imperial elephant. With somewhat amusing features (like long “noses” and big ears), these awesome animals can reach weights of up to 11 tons (22,000 pounds!). One elephant easily could kill a man just by stepping on him with one foot, or by striking him with its powerful trunk. Yet, for thousands of years, humans have been known to live with, and even tame, these massive beasts. Over 2,200 years ago, the empire of Carthage, led by its infamous general, Hannibal, used tame African elephants to cross the Swiss Alps and battle the Romans. Today, many elephants still are being controlled by man. Tamed elephants are used in various Asian countries in religious ceremonies, or to do physical labor like hauling lumber or transporting people from place to place. Elephants also are frequently seen performing at circuses. Amazing, is it not, that humans have trained these creatures, which can outweigh them by as much as 20,000 pounds—to perform some of the same tricks we train dogs to perform?

Humans have been able to live alongside elephants for thousands of years. Some humans and elephants even have become very good “friends.” Why, then, is it so hard for people to think of humans living together with some of the large dinosaurs? Yes, some dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus grew to be about four times larger than the largest elephants. Surely we would all agree, however, that if man can work, play, and go to battle alongside (or on top of!) elephants, it certainly is not absurd to think that humans did similar things with certain dinosaurs—especially when you consider that the average dinosaur (about the size of a large cow—see Horner and Lessem, 1993, p. 124) was reasonably smaller than the average elephant.

Whales are the largest animals of which we are aware that have ever existed on Earth—larger than any shark, elephant, or dinosaur. Blue whales have been known to weigh as much as 400,000 pounds (200 tons!), possess a heart the size of a Volkswagen Beetle®, and have a tongue large enough to hold 50 people. Yet, humans have hunted many species of whales for centuries. Furthermore, whale researchers and photographers have been able to get close enough to touch these massive creatures in the open ocean.


Killer whales (also called orcas) are another one of God’s magnificent creatures with which we live on the Earth. Orcas are one of the oceans’ fiercest predators, able even to kill much larger whales, including blue whales, when swimming in packs (referred to as “pods”). They hunt so well that very few animals can escape their predatory practices. Orcas eat hundreds of thousands of pounds of mammal and fish meat every year. Seals, sea lions, walruses, otters, polar bears, and even a moose have all been found in the stomachs of these ferocious creatures.

Amazingly, these incredible “killing machines” (weighing up to 11,000 pounds!) can be captured, tamed, and trained to do all sorts of things. The famous orcas living at Sea World in Orlando, Florida, occasionally take their trainers for rides on their backs. Trainers of orcas even have been known to stick their heads inside the whales’ mouths (which usually hold about 40-56 large, 3-inch-long teeth) without fear of getting bitten.


How can a mere 150-pound man teach a 10,000-pound whale to jump hurdles, ring bells, and perform other tricks—without being harmed? The answer is found in the fact that God made man in His own image, and gave him the ability to have dominance over the lower creation. As early as Genesis chapter one we read:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (1:26-28, emp. added).

Regarding this supremacy that God gave mankind over His creation, the psalmist added:

What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen—even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth! (8:4-9, emp. added).


The reason man can tame and/or live with even the largest and most vicious creatures on Earth is because God created man “higher” than the animals, and gave him the ability to “subdue” them and have “dominion” over them. If man, in the twenty-first century, can live with (and tame) such amazing creatures as the Komodo Dragon, the elephant, the blue whale, and the killer whale, as well as lions (“the king of all beasts”), tigers, and bears, it should not be difficult to accept the fact that man once lived and interacted with dinosaurs. James wrote: “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind” (3:7).

EVIDENCE FROM DRAGON LEGENDS
Most people likely are unaware that the word “dinosaur” was not coined until the 1840s. Thus, if these creatures lived alongside humans prior to that time (and the evidence indicates that they did—see Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 197-226), they were not called dinosaurs. So what were they called? Dragons. Numerous cultures throughout the world possess ancient stories about “dragons” that closely resemble what we today would call dinosaurs (which is to be expected if dinosaurs and humans actually lived together). From ancient texts in Mesopotamia, China, and Europe, creatures with scaly skin, slender necks, and long tails are described.

In far-eastern countries such as China, dragons often are described in ancient writings. Some of them are said to have been domesticated, and even were used to pull the chariots of Chinese rulers. Also, many of the ancient Chinese people are said to have used “dragon bones” for special medicines and potions. While visiting the continent of Asia in the 1200s, Italian explorer Marco Polo said that he saw long reptiles called Lindworms that easily ran as fast as a horse! In the British Isles, hundreds of dragon stories have come down to the present day. One account told of an animal with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a long tail. Also, in 1449 in England, it was reported that two huge reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the river Stour.

The epic poem Beowulf describes a battle in Denmark between a man named Beowulf and a terrible monster called Grendel. Beowulf was a real person. He lived from A.D. 495 to 583, and was king of a group of people known as the Geatingas. Grendel was a bipedal creature that possessed large, powerful jaws, and had small, weak forearms. (Beowulf slew him, you may recall, by tearing off one of those arms.) As Bill Cooper inquired:

Is there a predatory animal from the fossil record known to us, who had two massive hindlegs and two comparatively puny forelimbs? There is indeed.... I doubt that the reader needs to be guided by me as to which particular species of predatory dinosaur the details of his physical description fit best (1995, pp. 159,160).

Could it be—Tyrannosaurus rex?! Why not? The description of Grendel, recorded sometime before the tenth century A.D. (over nine centuries before the relatively recent discovery of dinosaur fossils), more closely resembles a Tyrannosaurus rex than any animal alive today. (NOTE: There is no indication that either Beowulf or Grendel was mythical in nature.)

If humans today can manipulate animals that are 100 times their own size (e.g., the elephant), that have a mouthful of 3-inch-long, dagger-like teeth (e.g., the killer whale), or that have claws that could be used to rip human beings apart (e.g., lions, tigers, and bears), why is it so difficult to believe that humans and dinosaurs once inhabited this Earth at the same time? Admittedly, many human lives likely were lost to certain species of dinosaurs for various reasons. But, for thousands of years, people also have lost their lives to animals that still inhabit the Earth today (like sharks, tigers, lions, poisonous reptiles, bears, elephants, etc.). Although we probably will never know exactly which details of the countless number of dragon stories are fact or fantasy, the simple truth is that the huge lizards in them sound very much like some of the dinosaurs we know once existed. Ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and other such illustrations also have been found throughout the world that point to a time when dinosaurs and humans once roamed this Earth together. One cannot help but wonder, if they never did coexist (as evolutionists would have us believe), what logical explanation can be given for the existence of hundreds of dragon legends, and the thousands of artifacts that either describe or depict these creatures hundreds or thousands of years before modern man began learning about dinosaurs as a result of the fossil record?

Sadly, however, it is not just evolutionists who take issue with the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. In a book he authored in 1998 titled The Genesis Question, well-known progressive creationist Hugh Ross ridiculed the concept that the biblical creatures, behemoth and leviathan, were dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals. According to Ross, “No creatures on Earth, alive or extinct, fit the literal descriptions” of the animals that God described to the patriarch Job in Job 40:15-41:34. Furthermore, “No dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke or had bones of iron and brass” (p. 48). Ross has chosen to believe that the magnificent creatures described by God in His second speech to Job were the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

Like so many professed Christians who have tried to amalgamate the long evolutionary ages with the biblical account of Creation, Ross’s reservations to accept the likelihood of behemoth being a dinosaur and leviathan being a dinosaur-like, water-living reptile are not the result of a sensible, judicious exegesis of the biblical text. A man who believes that dinosaurs “dominated the Earth’s land and sea life from 250 million to 65 million years ago” (p. 48), and that “no credible evidence whatever suggests the coexistence of primates and the great dinosaurs” (p. 49), obviously will have a difficult time accepting that behemoth and leviathan (which existed at the same time as Job) were dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals. [For additional information on the cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs, see Thompson and Harrub, 2003. For a discussion on the reality and the identity of behemoth and leviathan, see Lyons, 2001.]

Two of the main reasons Ross gives for rejecting the dinosaur-like features of these creatures are: (1) “no creatures on Earth, alive or extinct, fit the literal descriptions;” and (2) “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke.” According to Ross, such “facts” present a problem when Bible students understand these creatures as being dinosaurs.

We wonder if Ross could answer two questions for us. First, although admittedly no creature alive today fits the “literal descriptions” of leviathan and behemoth, how can Ross confidently assert that no extinct animal resembles the description of behemoth or leviathan? How does Ross know the description of every creature that has lived on the Earth? How does he know what feats they were capable of performing? Ross might suggest: “But common sense tells us that no creature had ribs of ‘iron’ or bones of ‘brass’ ” (cf. Job 40:18). True. But when God employed such metaphors and similes, any reasonable Bible student can understand that He was stressing the fact that behemoth’s bones were incredibly solid—like they were made of solid metal. Interestingly, although dinosaurs had the largest, most massive bones of any known animal that has ever walked the Earth (e.g., one fossilized Argentinosaurus vertebra was five feet high and five feet wide—see Meyer, 2002), and even though they are known to have the most massive tails of any animal ever known (e.g., the 40-foot-long tail of Diplodocus), which could reasonably be likened to a “cedar” (Job 40:17), Ross has chosen rather to believe that behemoth was a hippo—an animal with a tail shorter than many dogs and cats.

A second question we would appreciate Hugh Ross answering for us is how he can be so certain that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke.” By his own candid admission, Ross never has seen a dinosaur (since he believes they became extinct 65+ million years ago), and thus he obviously never has observed every dinosaur that walked on land (or dinosaur-like reptile that swam in the oceans). As Henry M. Morris observed in his book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science: “To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea serpents)” (1984, p. 359, parenthetical item in orig.). When a person considers that electric eels can produce enough electricity (500-600 volts) to stun a horse without ever shocking itself, that anglerfish and fireflies can manufacture “light,” that the Komodo dragon can store deadly bacteria inside its own mouth, and that bombardier beetles can produce a caustic, noxious fluid that can be expelled from their bodies at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, it is not difficult to accept the possibility that certain dinosaurs or dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles were capable of expelling certain hot gaseous fumes that might ignite.

Hugh Ross, it seems, has forgotten that all animals, including the dinosaurs, were designed and created by God on days five and six of Creation. If Jehovah wanted to create one or more dinosaurs that could expel fire, smoke, or some deadly chemical out of their mouths without harming themselves, He certainly could have done so. Bearing in mind the way that God described leviathan to Job in Job 41:18-21, and considering that many secular stories have circulated for millennia that describe “fiery dragons,” it is logical to conclude that He did create such creatures. It seems fitting to ask Dr. Ross the same rhetorical question God asked Abraham long ago: “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14). Who is Hugh Ross to say that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire”?

EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE
Although evolutionists are quick to discount anything that the Bible has to say about the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, anyone who claims to be a Christian (and thus trusts the Bible to be God’s revelation to man) must accept whatever information they find in the Bible to be accurate. In regard to the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, many modern-day “Bible believers” either have rejected what the Bible has to say on the subject, or else they never have given it much thought in light of various Bible passages. According to the Scriptures, the whole of God’s earthly creation was brought into existence within six days. Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (cf. also Exodus 31:17). The apostle John declared that “all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:3). If God created the Earth, the heavens, the seas, and everything in them in six days, what does that omit? It omits absolutely nothing! [NOTE: Genesis 1:31 records that the Creation was “perfect,” and Genesis 2:1 states that it was “finished.”]

The Genesis record goes on to inform us that no animals were created before day five, at which time God created sea-dwelling creatures and birds (Genesis 1:20-23). On the sixth day of Creation, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicate that God made all of the land animals, as well as the first two humans, Adam and Eve. According to Genesis 2:19-20,

Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him (emp. added).

God miraculously “brought...every beast of the field” to Adam in order that he might give them names, and also realize that his mate had not yet been created by God. A Christian cannot reasonably reject the view that dinosaurs (as land-dwelling animals) and humans once lived together, because Adam lived alongside dinosaurs. He even gave them names. Just as Adam lived on the Earth as a contemporary with such “intimidating” animals as lions, bears, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, and elephants, the inescapable conclusion is that he also lived with dinosaurs. [NOTE: Through the years, attempts have been made to introduce into the biblical record the concept of an old Earth so that evolutionary concepts (such as the separation of men and dinosaurs by millions of years) could be made acceptable to Bible believers. These attempts (generally known as the Day-Age Theory and the Gap Theory) have failed, because the premises upon which they were developed were false. For an in-depth refutation of these theories (and others), see Thompson, 2000.]

Bible believers who question the possibility of humans being able to cohabitate the Earth with dinosaurs should consider the types of creatures with which Noah and his family cohabited for more than 365 days while on the ark. Genesis 7:13-16 states:

On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark—they and every beast after its kind, all cattle after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort. And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life. So those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in (emp. added).

Representatives of all kinds of the land animals of the Earth were on the ark. Earlier, God had instructed Noah, saying:

And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive (6:19-20, emp. added).

Similar to how God “brought” the animals to Adam centuries earlier in order to be named, He told Noah that all of the animals he was to take on the ark would “come to” him. Animals of all kinds migrated to where Noah lived, and joined him and his family on the ark. For a little over one year, Noah and his seven family members lived on a boat with bears, bats, alligators, gorillas, lions, tigers, and many other animals that humans normally try to avoid. Also included in this list of land animals would have been dinosaurs (since by definition dinosaurs are land-living animals). If dinosaurs were living during the time of Noah (and there is overwhelming evidence that they must have been, since humans after that time have encountered dinosaurs), the simple truth is that they were on the ark.

Sadly, it is very unpopular to teach that mankind once coexisted with dinosaurs. The average person has been programmed by his or her environment to think that humans and dinosaurs never could have lived together. Not only are we told that dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago, but the mindset of most people seems to be that even if this alleged 60-million-year gap of time did not exist, these creatures would have been far too dangerous for us to exist along with them. Even many Christians have a difficult time accepting the idea of humans and dinosaurs cohabiting the Earth at the same time. For some reason, when these Christians read the Creation account or rehearse the story of Noah and the Flood, they rarely consider these accounts in light of the many kinds of animals that have since become extinct.

Draw a human standing next to a dinosaur (except for cartoonish purposes), and prepare to be ridiculed. Draw a human riding a small dinosaur, and you likely will be labeled eccentric. Few people seem to care that ancient art depicts Indians riding these creatures, or that certain ancient Chinese writings mention dinosaur-like creatures pulling the chariots of Chinese rulers. Even many “Bible believers” seem to dismiss the historical and biblical evidence of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time and within close proximity to each other. But draw a picture of a man riding on the back of a 20,000-pound elephant, and no one has a problem with it. Write an article about the woman you saw at Sea World riding on the back of an 8,000 pound killer whale, or about how she stuck her head inside the whale’s massive mouth, and everyone understands these stories as being acceptable observations of reality. Tell a friend about the man at the circus who has tamed lions, tigers, and bears, and that is nothing but old news. Just refrain from telling people about the evidence for man’s coexistence with dinosaurs, because “that is absurd”—or so we are told.

If man can tame many types of dangerous and ferocious animals that live on Earth today, why is it so difficult to think of man being capable of surviving alongside dinosaurs? Ancient man was able to build pyramids that stood nearly 500 feet high. He constructed the Great Pyramid with over two million blocks of stone that had to be cut, transported, and assembled to create the almost six-million-ton structure. To this day, modern man still does not know exactly how the Egyptians built these great pyramids. More than one thousand years before astronomers discovered that the length of a year was precisely 365.2422 days, ancient man (without any help from computers or modern measuring devices) calculated the length of a year as 365.2420 days long. He also figured the orbital period of Venus to be 584 days, when current science shows it at 583.92 days. Our early forefathers were capable of tunneling through rock in order to mine precious metals from deep within the Earth (Job 28). Humans formed tools out of bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22). And a man named Noah even built an ark thousands of years ago that was larger than many ships of today (Genesis 6-8).

Our forefathers were not the ignorant, unlearned nitwits that many evolutionists today make them out to be. Rather, our ancestors were intelligent individuals who were more than capable of surviving alongside dinosaurs. They were made in the image of God, and given dominion “over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28)—including the dinosaurs.

DINOSAURS AND HUMANS—
WHERE IS THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR THEIR COEXISTENCE?
But if dinosaurs and humans did once live as contemporaries on Earth, why is it that human fossils have not been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils? If they lived together and died together, shouldn’t there be evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?

Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, various ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Why, then, at first glance, does the fossil record seem not to corroborate this information?

First, fossils are rare. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. Consider as an example all the bison that were slaughtered and left to rot on the prairies of the Old West. In those days, you could buy a seat on a train, pull up to a herd of bison, and keep shooting out of the window until you were either out of bullets or your barrel overheated. When everyone had enough, the train would move on, leaving the dead and dying animals behind. By 1885, millions of bison had been reduced to just 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why? Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by worms, birds, insects, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone. Even oxygen plays a part in breaking down the chemicals that make up the living body. Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote:

[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth’s normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv).

Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the deeper and sooner the better. Fine sediments, like mud and silt, are good because they block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Second, although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various countries around the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah [USA]) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, in museums, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a single specimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (p. 7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica (housed in the Fernbank Museum o Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia) is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Third, humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. More than two decades ago, in an article in New Scientist, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table (1981, 89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). It is true, of course, that additional alleged hominid fossils have been discovered since Watson and Reader made their comments, but none qualifies as a legitimate human ancestor (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 14ff.). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1996, p. xv, emp. added). More recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

Fourth, considering that sedimentary rocks (the sort of rocks in which fossils are most likely to be found) cover two-thirds of the continents and are over a mile thick on average, even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, road cutting, or a cliff), but unless they are discovered before the wind, Sun, and rain reduce them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Furthermore, it may very well be the case that these bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons, were not reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry, could react by saying, “Hey look guys, it’s a bunch of old bones. But quick, pass me another stick of dynamite so we can get the next ton of coal out of here.” The proof that men and dinosaurs were fossilized together may have gone up in smoke years ago. Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. By saying this, we do not mean to accuse evolutionary researchers of dishonesty. Rather, we simply believe they are afflicted with presuppositions that have affected their judgment. It is evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who are doing most of the research in this area. If they did happen upon human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same strata, is it not possible that they would think to themselves, “Oh, these human fossils are an anomaly; they cannot have actually existed in this time period because evolution is true”? If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.” Because (from an evolutionary perspective) human fossils “shouldn’t be where they are,” they might very well not get reported as being where they are!

Additionally, we find a number of evidences in the fossil record which clearly refute the evolutionary notion that humans and other large mammals were not present during the “age of the reptiles.” Evolutionary timelines present mammals as having evolved from reptiles. Raven and Johnson, in their college text, Biology, wrote: “During the Mesozoic Era, the reptiles, which had evolved earlier from the amphibians, became dominant and in turn gave rise to the mammals and the birds” (1989, p. 432). George Gaylord Simpson and his co-authors contended that no “advanced mammals” were present during the age of the dinosaurs. Why not? The dinosaurs allegedly became extinct in the Cretaceous Period, and the only mammals that had evolved up to that point were “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (1957, p. 797, emp. added). This is a logical explanation if one contends that mammals evolved from reptiles, because that scenario require mammals to appear much later in the picture.

But therein lies the problem. A significant discovery, reported in the January 13, 2005 issue of Nature, has challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding the cohabitation of dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press noted:

Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur (Verrengia, 2005).

Not only is there substantial proof of large mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but now we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! Scientists discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One (Repenomamus giganticus) was 50% larger than mammals previously considered to be living alongside dinosaurs. The other, Repenomamus robustus, was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his co-authors wrote in Nature:

During preparation of the specimen, a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth—EL/BT], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or “fingers”—EL/BT] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton ofPsittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).

In discussing this amazing find, Nature writer Anne Weil observed: “Discoveries of large, carnivorous mammals from the Cretaceous challenge the long-held view that primitive mammals were small and uninteresting. Have paleontologists been asking the wrong question?” (2005, 433:116, emp. added). Maybe a better question would be: Have paleontologists been analyzing the data via evolutionary presuppositions?

It may be that dinosaur and human fossils will never be found together. But, regardless of whether they are or not, the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs at one time in the past is undeniable to the unbiased truth seeker. Human footprints in coal veins that are allegedly 250 million years old, human artifacts buried in limestone dated at 135 million years old, clay figurines of dinosaurs from an ancient civilization in Mexico, ancient dinosaur petroglyphs, and much, much more, all point to a conclusion that evolutionists will not accept—dinosaurs and humans once lived on Earth together.

REFERENCES
Anderson, I. (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28.

Begun, David (2004), “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” Science, 3003:1478-1480, March 5.

Clayton, John N. (1990), Dinosaurs—One of God’s More Interesting and Useful Creations (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author).

Clayton, John N. (1991), Does God Exist? Christian Evidences Intermediate Course Teacher’s Guide (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author).

Cooper, Bill (1995), After the Flood (Chicester, England: New Wine Press).

Dodson, Peter (1990), “Counting Dinosaurs: How Many Kinds Were There?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87:7608-7612, October.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Horner, John R. and Don Lessem (1993), The Complete T. rex: How Stunning New Discoveries are Changing Our Understanding of the World’s Most Famous Dinosaur (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.

Jones, Alvin T. (no date), “The American Bison,” [On-line], URL: http://www.texasbi son.org/bisonstory.html.

Lewin, Roger (1990), “Science: Dinosaur Count Reveals Surprisingly Few Species,” New Scientist Archive, 128[1745], December, [On-line], URL: http://archive.newscientist.com/ secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg 12817452.700.

Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason & Revelation, 21:1-7, January.

Meyer, Pedro (2002), “Does the Original Matter?,” WashingtonPost.com, [On-line], URL: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ero/jan_02.htm.

Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Powell, James Lawrence (1998), Night Comes to the Cretaceous (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company).

Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson (1989), Biology, (St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing), second edition.

Reader, John (1981), “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?,” New Scientist, 89:802, March 26.

Ross, Hugh (1998) The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress).

Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company).

Snelling, Andrew (1991), “Where are All the Human Fossils?,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992.

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.

Thompson Bert and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Verrengia, Joseph (2005), “Fossils Show a Mammal Turned Tables, Devoured Dinosaur for Last Meal,” [On-line], URL: http://www. cp.org/english/online/full/science/050 112/g011204A.html.

Watson, Lyall (1982), “The Water People,” Science Digest, 90[5]:44, May.

Weil, Anne (2005), “Living Large in the Cretaceous,” Nature, 433:116, January 13.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebel Hog

Moose they still do! This is a small one!

Moose75

thats a good one Rebel I had one in the road the other day it was about 4-5 ft and I went to get him out of the road so my buddy put a shirt over his head and I got him by the tail and pulled him in the water on the side of the road and let him go. I didnt want someone to run him over and he wouldn't move.

Red Hawk

Real or fake, i'd love to see one around here

mammasboy

To believe in a YEC-style 6000 year old earth, you'd have to ignore evidence from nearly every corner of the sciences. The original evidence for an old earth came from geological processes like river sedimentation, but even stronger evidence is available today from continental drift and radioactive decay rates. Essentially all the earth's helium, for instance, comes from the radioactive decay of heavy elements with half-lives of millions of years; if the earth was only thousands of years old, then virtually none of these atoms would have decayed yet. In biology, the great age of the earth is demonstrated by rates of change of DNA. Historical linguistics shows that many modern languages evolved from a smaller number of parent languages, and the rate at which languages change is too slow to allow this linguistic evolution to have occurred within 6000 years. There is also a great deal of astronomical evidence. Measurements of the rate of cratering in our solar system show that the moon must be billions of years old. The ages of star clusters can be determined based on models of how the structure of a star changes as it uses up its hydrogen fuel.