Dimitrovgrad Russia, May 16, 2006
Genesis / Creation Seminar
Part IV - Dinosaurs In The Bible, Radioisotope Dating
There is a lot of historical evidence that men and dinosaurs lived
together. But, if men and dinosaurs lived together you'd think that
the Bible would mention them as it does other animals. So, do we
read about dinosaurs in the Bible? Yes.
Keep in mind that the word dinosaur was not invented until the
19th century. So if dinosaurs existed before the 19th century they
must have been called something different. Let's read Job chapter
40 verses 15-18 and see if we can figure out what is being described.
"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made
as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength
in his loins and his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends
his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze; his limbs are like bars of iron."
The Bible goes on to describe Behemoth as resting in marshy areas
in which lotus plants, reeds and willows grow. He is so big that
when the rivers flood, Behemoth is not concerned. He is so big that
a flood does not bother him.
What is this describing?
It sounds like the largest dinosaur ever found, a brachiosaurus
(Brak-key-0h-saurus). 20 meters long and weighted 74 tons as much
as 20 elephants.
When the Bible talks about dinosaurs it uses the Hebrew word "Tannium"
Keep in mind that the word "dinosaur" was not created
until the 19th century. Early translators of the Bible ddn't have
the word "dinosaur" available to them, but they accurately
translated the word "Tannium" as dragon, because this
was an animal they knew about. We've now come to think of dragons
as mythological, and it has only been recently that the evidence
is surfacing and we are learning that dinosaurs lived with man,
and the term people used to describe them is dragon.
The word "tannium" is used about 50 times in the Bible.
But because modern translators did not know what this word means
they sometimes translated it as "dragon", but other times
it was translated is serpent or jackal. Here are some examples:
Psalm 90:13 (91:13): "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder;
the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."
Psalm 73:13 (74:13) "Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength;
thou breakest the heads of the (serpent) dragons in the waters.
Jeremiah 14:6 "And the wild asses did stand in the high places,
they snuffed up the wind like (jackels) dragons; their eyes did
fail, because there was no grass."
Malachi 1:3 "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and
his heritage waste for the dragons (jackels) of the wilderness."
Yes, the Bible talks about dinosaurs and it does so in the same
manner as it does any other real animal. Dinosaurs are mentioned
throughout the Old Testament.
By the way, translating "tannium" as behemoth, serpent,
jackal or dragon has no effect on how we understand what the Bible
is saying. The Bible is not intended to be a book telling us about
dinosaurs. It is a book about God and His plan for us. Dinosaurs
are mentioned only because they were part of everyday life. For
example, in Job chapter 40, where behemoth is mentioned, God is
giving an example of how he created the largest animal that ever
lived, a brachiosaurus, so that Job will better understand who God
is--because God is someone who can create such a huge and powerful
So far evolutionism is not matching reality. What is the best evidence
for evolution? Let's talk about evidence for the age of the earth.
Is the earth about 6,000 years old as the Bible indicates, or is
it billions of years old as evolutionism says. Let's look at the
evidence and see which best matches reality.
If a fossil is found, how do we find out how old it is? There are
no methods by which the age of the fossil can be directly measured.
So a fossil is dated based on the rock layer it is found in. If
a fossil is encased in a 350 million year old rock, then the fossil
also has to be 350 million years old. That makes sense.
So, how is the age of the rock determined? That's easy. If the
fossil in the rock is of a type commonly dated at 350 million years
old, then that rock must also be 350 million years old.
Do you see the problem here? The age of the rock sets the date
of the fossil and the age of the fossil sets the date of the rock.
That's circular reasoning. But, that's the way fossils were dated
for a long time.
But scientists have come up with a better way to date rocks. Fossils
still can not be dated directly, and neither can the layers of sediment
in which fossils are found. However certain kinds of rocks, such
as those that come from lava flows, can be measured using radioisotope
dating. So if we can find a lava flow next to or within a sediment
layer, the age of the sediment can be determined by dating the lava.
Radioisotope dating involves measuring isotopes formed by the decay
of radioactive materials in rocks and minerals. By measuring the
amount of the material that results from radioactive decay, and
the amount of the remaining undecayed original radioactive material,
scientists say the age of the rock can be determined. For example,
if a radioactive material has a half-life of 100 million years,
meaning half of it will decay to a radioactive product over a time
span of 100 million years, then if we have a rock with equal amounts
of the original radioactive material and the product of radioactive
decay, we should be able to say the rock is 100 million years old.
Radioisotope dating falls into the area of fact. Both creationism
and evolutionism agree that we are very good at measuring radioactive
materials in rocks. We agree on the facts. Our scientific abilities
in this area are outstanding. However, there are several assumptions
built into the radioisotope method of dating rocks that may effect
the final results. For example, we don't know the initial conditions
and we are assuming that conditions have been exactly as they are
today throughout all of history.
Let's say you are outside and you see an airplane flying south at
600mph, how long has that airplane been flying? Can anyone answer
that question? We know the current speed. How long has it been flying?
That question can't be answered. In addition to the speed, you need
to know the starting point and whether or not the speed has varied.
Or take a candle. As a candle burns it always gets smaller. Let's
say we have a clock and a lighted candle. We watch the candle burn.
We have a candle that is 8cm tall and we determine that it is getting
shorter by 1 cm every hour. Question, how long has the candle been
You say to me that's a foolish question, just like the airplane
question. You say, tell me how tall it was to start with, I'll tell
you how long it has been burning. Same with radioisotope dating,
we don't know the original amount--the starting point, and we don't
know if there have been any variations in the rate in the past.
We need to be able to calibrate radioisotope dating. We need to
have to have some known dates.
So let's try to calibrate radioisotope dating and see if it gives
us results that match reality. We'll find rocks that have a known
age, radioisotope date them, and find out whether the known age
matches the radioisotope date.
I live near an active volcano named Mount Saint Helens. On May 18th
1980 Mount Saint Helens erupted blowing off the top 3000 meters
of the mountain. It has been continually erupting since then. That
means it is making new rocks all the time.
Why is Mount Saint Helens a good test for radioisotope dating?
First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic
(igneous) rock. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly
dated using radioisotope methods. Second, the date of formation
of the Mount Saint Helens rocks is known, it is essentially zero.
A common method of dating rocks is potassium-argon dating. Radioactive
potassium decays to argon. That's the method that scientists used
for this test. A sample was collected and submitted for potassium-argon
analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality,
professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information
provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from volcanic
rock and that "low argon" should be expected.
What should have been the result? The result should have been that
the level of argon was too low to be measured. What was the result?
That the age of the rocks ranged from 350,000 years old to 2.8 million
years old. That's not right. The calibration has failed.
Why wasn't the age measured as zero? A good possibility is that
solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to
zero. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated from the start into
the newly formed rocks giving the "appearance" of great
age. In other words, we have assumed that rocks start at zero, but
this may not be true. And unlike Mt. St. Helens, we don't know the
starting condition of ancient rocks.
This type of test has been repeated many times with the same result.
Rocks from Mt. Etna, which erupted in 1792 date as being 1.4 million
years old. Rocks from Mt. Naguruhoe in New Zealand, which erupted
in 1949, 1954 and 1975 potassium-argon date to be 3.5 million years
The age of these rocks should be zero. But not only do that not
date as being new rocks, various rocks from the same eruption date
as having different ages.
The big problem I have with this is that scientists never ask an
important question. That question is, why? Doesn't good science
follow the evidence wherever it leads, seeking the truth? Shouldn't
we be trying to understand why new rock is dated as being millions
of years old? Shouldn't we be trying to understand why the results
are sometimes not consistent?
Here is another interesting anomaly. Carbon-14 dating is a method
of radioisotope dating that works in a fundamentally different way.
It can be used to determine the age of things that are up to about
100,000 years old, and it can only be used to date objects that
used to be living. It can date organic material. For example, carbon
dating can be used to determine the age of wood, charcoal, coal
or even diamonds.
Evolutionism says that coal was formed from vegetation that died
and was buried millions of years ago. Most of the coal was formed
during the Carboniferous period, which is dated from 299 million
years ago to 359 million years ago.
Why do scientists think coal is 299 to 359 million years old? You
can not directly radioisotope date coal, but you can date basalt
rocks that are in the same layer as the coal. So we know the age
of coal based on the age of the basalt rock layers. That makes sense.
What if someone tried to carbon date coal? You should not be able
to carbon date coal because it is much older than the 100,000 year
range that carbon dating can measure. Because of that no one bothered
to carbon date coal because everyone knew it was too old to be carbon
until someone actually tried to carbon date coal. The
result was that carbon dating different types of coals resulted
in ages ranging from 10,000 years up to 46,000 years. Scientists
say coal is millions of years old, carbon dating says it is less
than 50,000 years old. There is a question someone should ask
that question is WHY?
We're not doing very well calibrating radioisotope dating. So,
how do scientists calibrate radioisotope dating?
It is calibrated by Darwin's time scale. In other words, evolutionism
says that fossils are millions of years old, thus a radioisotope
date must show dates that are millions of years old. How is Darwin's
time scale calibrated? Because the radioisotope dating says the
rocks are millions of years old. How do you know the radioactive
dating is right? Darwin's time scale shows it. Do you see what has
happened? We've traded one method of circular reasoning for another
method of circular reasoning.
So to have an accurate measurement you have to have a calibration,
know the starting point, and know what the rate of decay was in
the past. We have none of these for radioisotope dating.
Is there any other method of measurement that might give us an
age of the earth and thus give us a calibration point?
We have radio halos. What are radio halos?
Let's look at the oldest rocks on earth, the pre-Cabamrian rocks.
These are the oldest rocks, they formed first and then everything
else settled on top of them. So if I dig down, down, down through
all the layers, to get to the oldest rocks on earth. The first rocks
on earth. The pre-Cambrian granite. What would I see?
you know what granite is like? It's a crystalline rock. It has silica
crystals in it. And muskavite crystals in it. A little over 100
years ago scientists made an amazing discovery. They discovered
that if these crystals in the oldest rocks are viewed under a microscope
they show a bulls-eye pattern. A round spot in the center with rings
around it. Scientists were fascinated by this. Why should the crystals
in the oldest rocks show these bull's eye patterns? You have to
see them in a microscope because the distance from one side to the
other side is less than the width of a human hair. So they are very,
They couldn't figure out why this was until1896 when the famous
French scientist Henry Beckerell discovered radioactivity. Then
scientists knew how to explain these little haloes. That little
spec in the center is an impurity in the crystal. That impurity
is radioactive. The radiation goes out in all directions. Different
types of radiation has different amounts of energy. Some of the
rays have a smaller amount of energy and as they travel through
the crystal they gradually lose their energy and STOP. A ring is
formed at that point. Others have more energy so they can travel
a little further before they loose their energy and stop, so there
is another ring further out. These are radiation damage patterns
in the crystal. They're known as radio halos.
There are different kinds of radioactivity so there are different
kinds of radio halos. Scientists determined that the impurity in
the granite was polonium.
If you see a piece of ice with a stone in the middle of it, that
stone is an impurity. How did the stone get in the ice? Did someone
throw a stone at the ice. How would you get a stone into ice? To
get it there it had to be liquid. But to hold it there it had to
be solid. That's the same logic scientists used with these radio
halos. There are three requirements necessary for a radio halo to
1. The rock had to be liquid to get the impurity in there.
2. The rock had to be solid and cool once the impurity was in the
rock. If the rock had been liquid the pattern would not have formed.
Also, if the rock is heated after the halo forms, the halo will
go away. So the rock has to stay solid and cool.
3. It had to be done while radioactivity was going on. Because
the radioactivity is needed to make these halos.
The impurity in this case is polonium. There are three kinds of
polonium. Pulonium 218, Polonium 214 and Polonium 210. We know this
is primordial polonium, meaning we are looking at the first rocks
that were created when the earth was formed, and the polonium got
into the rocks when they were formed. For example, we can see that
these rocks did not come down the radioactive decay chain. They
were here when the earth got started.
How fast does the radioactivity go away? What's the half life? Polonium
218 has a half life of three minutes. Polonium 214 has a half life
of 164 millionths of a second. You can't blink that fast. Polonium
210 has half-life of 138 days. The rock had to be liquid to get
the impurity into it. It had to be solid and cool to hold the pattern.
And it can only make the pattern while the radioactivity is going
on and the radioactivity goes away very, very fast.
What does that tell us about how this earth was formed?
The radioactivity and formation of the rocks must almost be instanteous.
Evolutionsm says the earth formed slowly, was hot molten for a long
time, and slowly cooled over a long period of time. That does not
match the evidence. The evidence matches what the Bible says:
Psalms 33 verses 6 and 9 say:
"By the word of the LORD were the
heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth."
"For He spoke, and it came to be;
He commanded, and it stood firm."
God spoke the world into existence. It did not exist. God spoke
and it existed. And the evidence we see in radio halos perfectly
Does this prove creation? No. In science you can't prove anything.
You can only disprove things. Does this disprove the idea that the
earth was formed slowly over billions of years of time. Yes. Evolutionism
contradicts the evidence in the rocks. It disagrees with reality.
But how can that be? Doesn't it take millions of years to create
a fossil? No. Here is a picture of a felt hat left in a mine 50
years ago. We have a small lake near where I live. You can drop
a towel in the lake, come back 24 hours later and the towel will
be fossilized. Fossilization does not require millions of years.
Then there is the puzzle of missing meteorites.
What's the puzzle of missing meteorites? A meteorite is an object
that comes down from space. Most of them burn up in the atmosphere.
A few make it clear through and strike the earth. So what's the
rate at which they make it clear through? This is a conservative
estimate. About 600 every year make it through and strike the earth.
Of course the earth is 3/4 water so 3/4 of them fall in the ocean.
That's 450 per year. 150 fall on land. Let's do some simple arithmetic.
If 600 come down every year and we're talking about 600 million
years for life to lay down the fossils we see, that's 360 billion
meteorites. So if evolutionism is true what would we expect? We
should see these meteorites saturated all throughout the 600 million
years of sediment. But if the Bible is true and those layers were
laid down in about a year of the flooding, then I would expect the
geological layers would show few or no meteorites.
What is reality?
In the lower levels of the geological column we find meteorites.
We also find them at the top. But never do we find meteorites in
the fossil layers. Why? One possibility is that those layers collected
too rapidly--exactly what we'd expect if there was a world-wide
In 1998 a group of scientists came together with the objective
of finding the answer to that question, the question "Why?".
In 2005 they published what they found out. The technical papers
are available. They are a little too expensive for me to buy, and
since I'm not a physicist I probably couldn't understand them anyway.
They also published a summary of their findings in a book that is
easier to read. It's called "Thousands Not Billions".
This book came out about eight months ago, and unfortunately it
is not available in Russian that I know of. If anyone here can read
English, I'd be happy to give you my copy.
What they found was that there are many discrepancies and problems
with radioisotope dating.
For example, there are a variety of methods that can be used to
radioisotope date rocks, such as rubidium-strontium, lead-lead,
and potassium-argon. What's puzzling is that when a rock sample
is dated using various radioisotope methods, the resulting ages
are different. If radioisotope dating worked, shouldn't all the
dating methods give approximately the same age?
For example, a rock sample from the Grand Canyon is dated as 656
million years old using potassium-argon. It is dated as 1075 million
years old using rubidium-strontium dating. It is 1330 million years
old when the age is determined by lead-lead dating. And it is nearly
1,400 years old using samarium-neodymium dating. 656 million years
old to 1,400 years old is a wide variation.
The amount of radioactive decay can be measured very precisely.
There really is 656 million years of potassium-argon decay in that
rock--based on the decay rate we see today. There really is 1,400
years of samarium-neodymium decay in that same rock. But until now
no one has asked
When someone finally asked WHY?, they found something very interesting.
Dates measured using Beta decay always result in ages that are much
less than dates determined using alpha decay. This discrepancy is
consistent over a large data set.
Combined with other research in areas such as radio halos and fission
tracks, this new research team has come to the conclusion that it
is possible that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant
in the past. They have identified two periods of accelerated decay.
There appears to have been a major acceleration about 6,000 years
at the time of creation. A second minor acceleration happened
about 4,500 years ago
at the time of the Biblical flood.
More research is now being done in this area.
Unfortunately we have run out of time. I hope this seminar has
lead you to think about this question: which option best matches
reality? Creationism or evolutionism? Don't just accept what you
are being told. Look at the evidence and see where the evidence
leads. That's what I did and the answers I found revealed that there
is no support for evolutionism and a huge amount of scientific support
for creationism that continues to rapidly grow.
What you decide is important because it may affect your eternal
destiny. You do not need to believe in creationism to spent eternity
with God (be saved), but for many people their belief in the false
teachings of evolutionism is keeping them separated from God.
Are you the result of random chance, with your original ancestor
being a rock
in which case you are nothing better than dirt.
Or are you lovingly created in God's image, designed and intended
to live on a perfect earth?
Yes, things are not perfect now. We must always remember that both
us, and the entire world (and universe) have been ruined by sin.
But God came into this world in the form of Jesus Christ. He died
to pay the penalty we owe for our sin (disobedience of God). And
then He proved there is life after death by coming back from the
dead Himself. His tomb was empty. No other leader of any religion
has every done that.
And now God gives us His free gift. A gift we call saving grace.
It is the free gift of Jesus dying to pay the penalty we owe for
our disobedience of God (sin), so that we can freely join Him in
heaven for ALL ETERETY.
Part I - Introduction,
Creationism & Evolutionism
Part II - The Scientific
Part II - Evidence
Support Evolution & Dinosaurs Lived With Man?
Part IV - Dinosaurs In The Bible & Radioisotope Dating