\textbf{Rob J. Hyndman}

Articles from \textit{The Australian Christadelphian Shield}

February – May 1994.

\textbf{1. Dinosaurs}

Dinosaur t-shirts, dinosaur books, dinosaur games, dinosaur movies, dinosaur exhibitions, dinosaur cereal, dinosaur yoghurt . . . Every opportunity is taken to use dinosaurs to make money. People have long been fascinated by the huge lizards which died out long ago. But the release of the film \textit{Jurassic Park}, has sparked a national obsession and dinosaurs have captured the imagination of children and adults across the country. Manufacturers have made the most of the fascination by exploiting dinosaurs in advertising for an enormous range of products.

It is a useful opportunity to consider where dinosaurs fit in the biblical time-line. What should our attitude be to the current dinosaur mania? Some people are concerned that allowing our children to see the film and have the dinosaur toys and clothing is teaching them about evolution. So should we prevent our children learning about dinosaurs? Can we believe the scientists, the movie, the books?

In this series, we shall consider the place of dinosaurs and other pre-historic animals in creation. We begin by reviewing what is known about dinosaurs and some of the fallacies concerning dinosaurs which are frequently found in Christian literature.

\textbf{The scientific view}

Our knowledge of dinosaurs comes from a large number of bones and fossils collected from many sites around the world. Some of these bones are quite enormous and must have come from animals which were astonishingly large. Whales are the only creatures with comparable dimensions and body weight. Not all dinosaurs were so big, though. Other skeletons have been found of similar structure which have come from much smaller animals.

Dinosaurs are characterised by their skeletons. If a skeleton is found which has certain ‘dinosaur-like’ features then it is placed in the dinosaur family. Actually there are two dinosaur families, one with skeletons similar to lizards, the other with skeletons similar to birds.

Huge numbers of dinosaur bones and other remains have been discovered in various parts of the world. In parts of China, for example, farmers use dinosaur bones to build pigpens! The mythical Chinese dragon is an ancient explanation for the large numbers of ‘‘dragon bones’’ found in Chinese soil. Most dinosaur remains are preserved as petrified bone, but occasionally, a dinosaur carcass may dry out and become mummified and then the soft parts of organisms may become preserved also. Other remains in the form of tracks, fossilised droppings and eggs have also been found. It is the great number and variety of remains which enables scientists to draw quite detailed conclusions about when the dinosaurs lived, what they looked like, their social habits, what they ate, even what sounds they made.

One rich source of dinosaur remains are the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains in the state of Montana, U.S.A.. Huge areas of dinosaur remains have been found trapped in cooling larva and ash from nearby volcanos. It is reminiscent of Pompeii, the Roman city frozen in time as it was encased in larva erupting from the nearby Vesuvius. These remains have provided remarkable evidence of the life and habits of dinosaurs. For example, they reveal dozens of depressions in the ground, filled with dinosaur eggs, broken shells and tiny fossilised baby dinosaurs. Each nest is about 2 metres in diameter and the nests are about 6 metres apart, suggesting a dinosaur rookery, rather like penguin rookeries today. By studying the acoustic properties of the nasal cavity in a dinosaur's skull, scientists can deduce what sounds they must have made. Analysis of the bone composition also reveals a great deal: for example it suggests they were probably warm-blooded. The skeletal structure helps us understand how they moved; some dinosaur skeletons display the characteristics of ‘sprinters’ rather than ‘plodders’. Putting together all this information reveals the detailed picture of dinosaurs which is portrayed in the film.

It is worth noting that many discoveries of dinosaur remains have only been made in the last 10–15 years. This means that a number of previous assumptions about dinosaurs have been proved incorrect and various new ideas have been formed. As a result, it is wise to use fairly recent books when reading about dinosaurs — the older books are likely to contain inaccuracies.

The word ‘dinosaur’ means ‘terrible reptile’ and was coined in 1841 by an English zoologist and palaeontologist Sir Richard Owen. Serious fossil hunting began about this time and exhibitions of dinosaur remains became popular from the 1850s. They are still popular — the ‘Great Russian Dinosaur Exhibition’ is currently at the Museum of Victoria and it is planned to move it to Sydney later.

Dinosaur fossils appear in the rock layers known as Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. (See box on geologic column.) According to the accepted dating methods, this places them in the period 248 million to 65 million years ago.

Dinosaur fossils don't occur after the Cretaceous layer. This means they must have died out approximately 65 million years ago. A number of theories have been suggested to explain the demise of dinosaurs. The most popular amongst scientists is that an asteroid ploughed into the earth creating a huge dust cloud, darkening the skies, lowering temperatures, and causing vast tracts of forests to die. The main evidence for this idea comes from the unusually high level of the metallic element, iridium, found in rocks from the end of the Cretaceous era. Iridium is rare on earth but common in meteorites. A large number of plants also seem to have died out at the same time, adding weight to the asteroid theory. A number of craters have been suggested as the likely site of impact for the asteroid. The most popular candidate is a crater in northern Yucatan, Mexico.

\textbf{The Geologic Column} Geologists observed as early as the late 1700s (long before the theory of evolution arose) that sedimentary rock appeared in layers and that each layer contained different sorts of fossils. They also noticed that the layers were similar all over the world — the same fossils were seen in adjacent layers in India, South America and Australia. This structure has since become known as the ``geologic column''. It is a representation of the rock layers and the typical fossils contained in each layer. There is enormous evidence for the geologic column — anyone can see the layers and find the fossils by getting a good pick and going out and looking. No assumptions have been made, no dating methods have been used. It is a matter of observation that rocks and fossils tend to appear in layers. In places, earthquakes have turned the rock layers on their side and even upside-down! But the same basic order is maintained. It is also clear that (allowing for earthquakes) the deepest fossils must be the oldest. Archaeologists use the same simple logic when excavating cities. The deeper they dig, the older the things they find. So the geologic column reveals that the earth has had a history of several periods — each period corresponding to a different layer. It is important to note that the order of layers was established long before evolution became popular. Nearly a century before Darwin, geologists had concluded that the history of the earth could be divided into various periods and they knew the order of those periods and the characteristic fossils from each period, but were unsure of the dates. In the nineteenth century, geologists gave names to these periods. Twentieth century science has attempted to provide dates for the various periods by measuring the extent to which some radioactive substance in the rock has decayed into another substance. Even though a number of different methods of dating have been used, they all give about the same dates. Furthermore, the dates are in the same order as the layers. This indicates that the dates suggested are probably reasonably reliable. Dinosaurs fall in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. This places them between about 248 million years and 65 million years ago.

\textbf{Name of Layer Estimated age} \textbf{Recent 10000 years – now} \textbf{Pleistocene 2 million – 10000} \textbf{Tertiary 65 – 2 million} \textbf{Cretaceous 144 – 65 million} \textbf{Jurassic 213 – 144 million} \textbf{Triassic 248 – 213 million} \textbf{Permian 286 – 248 million} \textbf{Carboniferous 360 – 286 million} \textbf{Devonian 408 – 360 million} \textbf{Silurian 438 – 408 million} \textbf{Ordovician 505 – 438 million} \textbf{Cambrian 590 – 505 million} \textbf{Pre-Cambrian ? – 590 million}

\textbf{Can we believe it?}

The only difficulties readers may have with what has been said so far are the huge periods of time involved. I suggest these are only perceived as difficulties because of the preconceived notion that a belief in a 6000 year-old universe is the only acceptable way to interpret Genesis and that any other interpretation is tantamount to believing in evolution. However, it is quite unnecessary to link a belief in an ancient earth with evolution and there are a number of ways (to be discussed in the next article) of harmonising the biblical record with the great lengths of time claimed by scientists.

Unfortunately, almost all of the books on dinosaurs refer to the theory of evolution frequently. Even the well-established geologic column is often titled ‘‘The Ages of Evolution’’, thus confusing facts with theory. However, none of the preceding discussion assumes a belief in evolution. We have simply summarised what the fossil and other geologic evidence suggests about the position of dinosaurs in world history.

Of course, we reject the theory of evolution as totally inconsistent with the majestic record of creation recorded in Genesis and affirmed by the rest of Scripture. It is clear that God created every living creature. There are also very good scientific arguments against evolution — things like the need for complicated design for organisms to function and the absence of any ‘missing-link’ fossils. So we rightly reject the theory of evolution as inconsistent with both Scripture and nature. But that does not invalidate everything scientists have to say about life. Unfortunately, we have been so quick to reject evolutionary ideas that many scientific discoveries have been foolishly rejected in the process.

We need to face the enormous evidence that various life forms, including dinosaurs, have appeared on this planet over remarkably long periods of time. The radiometric dating methods suggest life has existed in some form or another for over 500 million years. Whether we are prepared to accept these figures or not, there can be little doubt that some life has been on the earth for many millions of years at least.

For example, on a conservative estimate, there are several trillion fossils of vertebrate animals in the earth. This is far too many to have existed over only a few thousand years. It is sometimes claimed by creationists (including Christadelphian writers and speakers) that the fossils were all laid down in the Flood. But if those animals were all alive together, there would be several thousand animals per acre. And that is only the vertebrates. If the marine animals are added, a conservative estimate of the number of animals is that they would cover the entire planet, land and sea, to a depth of at least 50 cm! There are simply too many fossils to possibly have come from the Flood.

In places (Mt Everest for example), fossil-bearing sediments are up to 50 kilometres thick. There are many other places with enormously thick fossil-bearing sediments: 8km in the Gulf of Mexico, 4km in the North Sea, 7km in the Niger delta, 11km in the Mississippi delta. The \textbf{\textit{average}} thickness of fossil-bearing rock over the whole earth is about 1.5km. Clearly, it is impossible that these fossils were laid down during the Flood, or even over the last few thousand years. There are simply too many fossils.

Besides that, fossils are formed by slow sedimentation, not turbulent flood waters. The raging torrents of the flood are hardly ideal conditions to form fossils. The flood theory cannot explain the layers of fossils either. It is rather like suggesting a mix master has formed a layered sponge cake on its own!

All of the fossil evidence points to a very long history of life on this planet. It is clear to any one who looks at the volume and structure of fossils that they could only come about over a very long time indeed. There are many other lines of evidence which indicate, without using radiometric dating, that the earth has been the home to numerous life-forms for millions of years.

\textbf{Dinosaurs and men}

Unfortunately, much Christian literature on creation and evolution is riddled with errors, particularly on the subject of dinosaurs. For example, in discussing evolutionists' view of prehistoric man, one of our own booklets claims that ‘‘this grotesque creature is often depicted busily engaged slaying huge brontosauruses with a little wooden club’’. However, no scientist worth their salt would dream of depicting any human-like creature living at the same time as a dinosaur. As we have seen, scientists claim that dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, whereas the earliest fossils claimed to be human are about 2 million years old. The only places I have seen dinosaurs depicted cohabiting with humans are in creationist literature and cartoons like the Flintstones! Whatever we think of science and evolution, we make ourselves look extremely foolish by misrepresenting the current scientific view so badly. Statements like these only serve to anger scientists and may cause them to reject the whole Bible as a result.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that dinosaurs were alive at the same time as human beings. Dinosaur bones are never found in the same rock layers as human bones.

Creationists who would like to believe dinosaurs lived more recently than conventional science would have them, often point to a set of dinosaur tracks on the Paluxy River in Texas to support their case. The limestone is usually dated to about 105 million years old and contains both fossil dinosaur footprints and what look like fossil human footprints. Creationists are fond of using these to discredit the conventional dating methods and, indeed, the entire geologic column. However, there are some major difficulties with treating these as human footprints. These difficulties disappear if it is accepted that the second set of footprints belonged to a three-toed dinosaur. For a start, some of footprints are up to 50 centimetres long and the footprints are too far apart to have been made by humans — even giants. But they do fit the stride and foot of the three-toed dinosaur. Even more striking, sometimes the ‘human’ tracks have signs of a claw projecting from the heel. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the Paluxy River tracks is that two species of dinosaur co-existed, and that is no surprise to anyone.

Similarly, discussions of whether dinosaurs died out in the Flood or whether Noah included them in the ark are irrelevant. Dinosaurs died out long before Adam first set foot on earth.

\textbf{Conclusions}

There is enormous scientific evidence that dinosaurs roamed this planet for nearly 200 million years and died out about 65 million years ago. Where does this leave us as Bible believers? Certainly, God must have created the dinosaurs just as he has created every other living creature. Furthermore, for some reason he allowed them to die out long before he created Adam. In the next article we will discuss several possible ways of reading Genesis 1 which allow for these facts.

It is concerning that it is almost impossible to read about dinosaurs without finding continual references to evolution. And the scanty creationist literature on the subject is so riddled with scientific errors that it is of little use. For this reason alone, some brothers and sisters may choose to avoid the subject altogether. I think that would be a pity as it is a subject on which we need to be informed to be able to answer the questions of our children and those with whom we would share our hope.

\textbf{2. Interpreting Genesis}

\textit{In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.}

With these majestic words, Genesis begins the account of the creation. What is left out is, perhaps, as remarkable as what is said. For a start, there is no comment here or elsewhere, as to when this beginning was. Nor are we told what there was before this beginning. Nor is there any direct statement as to when the creation described in the rest of Genesis chapter 1 took place. So we are dealing with a subject that God has chosen not to reveal in detail.

However, there is sufficient information in the rest of Scripture for us to calculate (very approximately) the date Adam was created. Coupled with this we have the enormous scientific evidence of a very long history of life on this planet. For example, in the last issue we found that dinosaurs roamed the earth for nearly 200 million years and died out about 65 million years ago. We now need to consider how this information can be combined. We need to fit the extraordinarily long time periods in which prehistoric animals lived into the biblical record of creation.

\textbf{Bible chronology}

First, it is quite clear that Adam was created a little more than 6,000 years ago. This figure is based on the ages given in the biblical genealogies stretching back to Adam.

In my book, \textit{The Times: A Chronology of the Bible}, I show that Abram's birth can be dated to 1946 B.C. Other writers give slightly different dates, but all give figures which differ by no more than a couple of hundred years. Then, to calculate the date of Creation, we need to find the number of years between Adam and Abram. The genealogy of Genesis chapter 11 can be used to calculate the time from the Flood to Abraham and the genealogy of Genesis chapter 5 gives the years from Adam to the Flood. Using our English Bibles, we obtain 1656 years from Adam to the Flood and 352 years from the Flood to Abram. So we would date the creation of Adam at 1946 + 352 + 1656 = 3954 B.C.

Unfortunately, these figures may not be as certain as they first seem. Our English Bibles follow the Masoretic text for the ages in the genealogies. Other ancient manuscripts often give different figures. For example, the Samaritan Pentateuch usually records the age of a father at the birth of his first-born to be 100 years later than in the Masoretic text. Using this manuscript, we would date the creation of Adam to 4255 B.C. The Septuagint is similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch but adds another generation (Cainan) making the date of Adam's creation 5320 B.C.

The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint figures must be incorrect because they would have Methuselah living 14 years beyond the Flood when we know he was not in the ark with Noah and his family (Gen 7:7; 1Pet 3:20). Interestingly the figures in the Masoretic text mean he died in the year of the Flood, perhaps in the Flood.

It has been suggested that the scribes deliberately changed the figures to extend the age of the earth. At the time the Septuagint was written, the Greek conception of the world was much older than they thought Genesis depicted it. So it is possible they were attempting to present the Scriptures in a more favourable light.

So the figures in the Masoretic text are probably correct and we can therefore have confidence in our English Bibles. However, there is still the problem of the missing generation. Luke's genealogy of Jesus confirms (Lk 3:36) that there was the additional generation of Cainan missed out in Genesis 11. There may have been other generations missed out of both Genesis and Luke.

Out of all this uncertainty, we can be sure that Adam was created at least 6,000 years ago, and possibly a little earlier. It is interesting that archaeologists tentatively date the first indications of civilisation between 9,000 and 7,000 B.C.

\textbf{The Bible and the age of the universe}

We have seen that the Bible gives sufficient information to be able to, at least approximately, date the creation of Adam. But what about the rest of creation and the universe itself?

There is no statement in Scripture which states, unambiguously, that the entire universe was created in the six days described in Genesis 1. In fact, the description of the earth in Genesis 1:2 allows for an earth that was created long before the six days of that chapter:

Those who would argue that the universe is only a few days older than man himself usually quote Exodus 20:9 and 31:17 to support their view. These verses both state that

\textit{‘‘in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth.’’}

But ‘‘heavens and earth’’ may not mean ‘universe’. For example, there are many passages which use the phrase ‘‘heavens and earth’’ to describe the things \textit{in} heaven and \textit{on} earth (e.g. Gen 2:4; Dt 4:26). Elsewhere the phrase is used in a symbolic sense (e.g. Isa 65:17). While the above statement \textit{may} describe the creation of the universe, it is also possible that it is using the phrase ‘‘heavens and earth’’ in a much more restricted sense.

So the Bible does not offer any clear statement on the age of the universe. Therefore we are in no position to argue with scientists who say the earth is very old. We cannot base our whole cosmology on a couple of verses which may not be meant in a literal sense at all. It is better to admit that the Bible is not clear on this point, and leave the discussion to scientists.

It is interesting that early Christadelphians were happy to accept an old earth and did not perceive any biblical difficulties. Certainly Br Roberts believed the earth was old and said so in \textit{The Visible Hand of God} (chapter 2). Br Thomas said the same in \textit{Elpis Israel} (p.11) and elsewhere. It is only relatively recently that people have begun debating this issue.

Unfortunately, almost all of the current literature in Christian bookshops on creation and evolution takes the view that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Those who hold this view must then reject much of geology and palaeontology as incorrect. This is an extremely dangerous and foolish position to take in the absence of any strong biblical evidence. The words of Genesis could well mean creation in the sense of a new beginning, a fresh start with the raw material God already had on hand.

\textbf{Interpretations of Genesis 1}

We now have to reconcile the fossil evidence of dinosaurs living more than 65 million years ago, and the biblical evidence of the human race being only a few thousand years old.

There have been many attempts to reconcile Genesis 1 with science. First we shall consider two views which I believe are unsatisfactory.

\textbf{1. Days covered a long period of time}

\textbf{3. This is not the only creation}

\textbf{The Bible is not a science book}

Certainly, it must be admitted, that no-one reading Genesis without knowledge of modern science would arrive at any of these interpretations. But then, if we did not know better, we would probably interpret the phrase ‘‘the four corners of the earth’’ (Isa 11:12) to imply a flat, square earth. And if we had lived more than 500 years ago, we would probably conclude from the passage ‘‘the world stands firm, never to be moved’’ (1Chr 16:30) that the planet was a fixed, unmoving object. Theologians of the middle ages did draw incorrect conclusions from these passages and, consequently, rejected the emerging science of the day. Of course, they had misinterpreted Scripture, trying to draw scientific conclusions from poetic passages written to teach people how we should think of God and his almighty power. One consequence of this error was the alienation of science from Scripture. Scientists were led to believe (incorrectly) that the Bible contained scientific inaccuracies and so rejected the Bible completely.

We are in danger of following a similar path if we choose to reject geology and palaeontology because it conflicts with our preconceived notions of what the Bible teaches. Such an approach can only undermine all that is said against evolution.

The Bible is not a scientific book and is not written in a scientific way. The language genre of the Old Testament is deeply rooted in Hebrew culture. Colourful phrases such as ‘‘windows of heaven’’ and ‘‘the four corners of the earth’’ are used to portray concepts not facts. So, in considering creation, we should be wary of reading it as a piece of Western science rather than Hebrew literature. And in view of the many mistakes that have been made in the past concerning science and Scripture, we would be very foolish to write off the discoveries of science without thinking very carefully indeed about whether our interpretation of Scripture is correct.

\textbf{Conclusions}

Certainly, if God had attempted to describe exactly how he made this amazingly complex world, then no-one — not the ancient Israelites or the modern scientists — would have made much sense of it. So God has said to us in Genesis 1:

It is clear that God has been active in creating life on earth for many millions of years. Part of his earlier creative work included dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. Much more recently, in the last 6,000 years or so, God created human beings. What is not clear is whether the description of Genesis 1 includes the earlier creations or not. But either way, we have seen that Genesis 1 can be interpreted in a way which is perfectly consistent with scientific evidence for a very old earth that has supported life for many millions of years.

\textbf{3. Mammoths and Ice Ages}

\textbf{Dima the baby mammoth}

Dima was discovered in June 1977. He was a baby woolly mammoth, just six or seven months old when he died and was about 1 metre high. He died by the River Kirgilyakh in eastern Siberia and was preserved in the frozen ground for more than 40,000 years before gold miners discovered him. In many ways he looked like a baby elephant although he had long ginger hair and very small ears.

Dima is just one of many woolly mammoths unearthed in the frozen ground of Siberia and Alaska. What was the world like when these creatures roamed the northern steppes near the Arctic circle? How did they die out? How do they fit into creation? These are the questions we shall consider in this article.

\textbf{Other mammoths}

Several other complete carcasses of woolly mammoths have been found still frozen in the position in which they died. In the early 1970s, bones and other remains of about 140 mammoths were found on the banks of the River Berelekh, several hundred kilometres from the place where Dima lay.

Only in areas of permafrost, where the ground has remained continuously frozen since the time of their death, is it possible for carcasses to be preserved in this way. They are so well preserved that sled dogs have fed on the meat that had lain there for more than 10,000 years! In fact, mammoth remains were so plentiful in Siberia that fossil ivory from mammoth tusks has been exported to China and Europe since medieval times.

From these remains, we learn that the mammoth was a creature similar to an elephant although it differed from modern elephants in that its tusks were longer (up to 5 metres long) and more curved and it was covered in dense, furry, grey hair, overlain by longer bristly reddish-brown hair up to 50 cm long. It also had a fatty lump on its back, no doubt a protection against the cold conditions. There were other species of mammoth which lived in warmer areas that did not have the woolly coat.

\textbf{How did they die?}

Some of the frozen mammoth carcasses show no signs of decay or damage from other animals. In a few cases, remains of various plants and insects have been found frozen in their mouths and digestive tracts. This suggests they must have been buried and frozen very quickly.

Some have seen this as evidence for a dramatic catastrophe which covered and froze the mammoths as they grazed with food still in their mouths. Many people consider it evidence for the Genesis Flood. However, there are several reasons why this cannot be true. For a start, all the remains are thousands of years too old for the Flood and the remains of different animals range in age over more than 30,000 years so they could not have died simultaneously. Also, there is no evidence of death by drowning in turbulent flood waters; rather that the animals were suddenly covered and frozen. Furthermore, most of the remains discovered do show some decomposition before burial and others have been damaged by animals eating their flesh. This suggests that the mammoths did not all die or become buried by the same process.

It is more likely that most of the mammoths were buried by snow drifts after dying naturally. The well-preserved frozen carcasses may have been buried after falling into ice crevasses and quickly covered by snow or they may have been buried in an avalanche.

\textbf{Giants, dragons and unicorns}

Mammoths are not the only large animals from this era to have been unearthed. In Africa, a 3m long warthog has been found; an Asian rhinoceros was double the length of its modern counterparts; gigantic wombats called Diprotodons, as large as grizzly bears have been found in Australia along with giant kangaroos.

Throughout history, many people have uncovered fossilised bones from these animals and have been puzzled what to make of them. They have often been interpreted as the remains of giants and dragons. A skeleton found in Sicily in the 1400s was thought to be that of the one-eyed cyclops Polyphemus. In Russia, bones of mammoths were attributed to the giant Inder, who was thought to live underground. In the main square at Klagenfurt in Austria is a sculpture of a winged dragon made in 1590. This seems to have been based on a skull of a woolly rhinoceros found in the neighbourhood. The remains of many ancient mammals found in China, including the rhinoceros, tapir and the three-toed horse, have long been regarded as dragons. They are still sold in Chinese shops, along with dinosaur remains, as "dragon's bones" and "dragon's teeth" for use as a medicine.

Mammoth tusks and rhinoceros horns have also been interpreted as the horns of unicorns. In fact, "unicorn horn" was included in the British \textit{Pharmacopoeia} as having great medicinal properties. The unicorns mentioned in the King James Version of Scripture (e.g. Job 39:9-13) are, of course, a mistranslation reflecting the translators' belief in this mythical creature. All modern versions translate the word as "wild ox".

\textbf{The Ice Age}

The mammoth remains are all dated to more than 10,000 years ago using radioactive methods. This was the period of the last Ice Age. Contrary to common belief, it was not a time when the earth was covered with snow and glaciers. While there were large areas blanketed in ice, there were also grasslands and forests capable of supporting various plants and animals.

Until quite recently, the main evidence for the Ice Age were geological formations such as the many valleys around the world bearing the characteristic scars of glaciers. Since the late 1960s, some remarkable new evidence for the icy history of the planet has been discovered.

\textbf{Ice cores}

In Greenland, scientists have just completed drilling another hole into the ice cap. This is the deepest hole yet -- just 10 cm in diameter but three kilometres deep. The ice core they have extracted provides an amazing record of the earth's climate.

The snow doesn't melt in the freezing Arctic conditions and so each year's layer of snow is covered by the next and is squeezed into ice by the accumulating weight. Over thousands of years, the ice sheet has grown steadily deeper. As snow falls on to the ice, it carries dust and other chemicals from the atmosphere. Since the dust in the atmosphere varies with the time of year, the snow which falls each year forms its own distinct layer and it is possible to count the number of years in the ice core just as we can tell the age of a tree by counting the annual growth rings on its stump. The most recent core they have extracted contains a 200,000 year record of the earth's climate.

Scientists can learn about the changing composition of the atmosphere over time by extracting, from the core, air bubbles frozen in time. In particular, the ratio of two oxygen isotopes in the extracted air is a good measure of its temperature when it was trapped. The ice cores show clearly that 11,500 years ago, this ratio changed rapidly over a period of 50 years as the planet became warmer. This was the end of the last Ice Age.

\textbf{Sea bed cores}

A similar record of the earth's climate can be found by taking cores from the ocean floor. These provide information about the climate over a much longer period than the ice cores and show other Ice Ages in the earth's history. The long cores of sediment from the sea bed are largely made up of the shells of dead sea creatures. Unlike the ice cores, the annual layers cannot be counted but various sorts of radioactive dating can be used and checked against dates calculated by the fluctuations in the magnetism of the rocks. Since all methods yield similar dates, we can be fairly confident of their accuracy. Even allowing for the greatest possible errors, the figures still show an earth many hundreds of millions of years old.

With the dates fixed, the temperatures can be determined using the same technique as with the ice cores based on the composition of the trapped oxygen. Another trick is to count the number of different species of shellfish in different layers of sediment -- some thrive in warmer water and some in cold, so the type found in each layer also gives a guide to temperature. The sea-bed cores show that there have been many Ice Ages over the earth's history.

In fact, it appears that Ice Ages occur in a 100,000 year cycle. It is thought that this cycle is caused by variations in the tilt of the earth's axis and changes in its orbit around the sun. During each cycle, the ice builds up slowly until the sudden warming occurs and more temperate conditions prevail for about 10,000 years before the planet begins to cool again.

Therefore, scientists predict a new Ice Age is about to begin some time in the next one thousand years or so. There is some debate about how an Ice Age would be counteracted by the 'greenhouse' effect. However, the Bible prophecies of the earth during the kingdom age suggest that God may intervene to produce entirely different and more prosperous conditions.

\textbf{Extinctions}

The most recent dated mammoth remains are about 11 - 12,000 years old and they probably became extinct soon after that time. No-one really knows why they died out although many scientists now think it is was probably due to the change in climate at the end of the Ice Age.

Many other species of large animals also died out between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago and the giant camel as recently as 3,500 years ago. Because they don't seem to have become extinct simultaneously, they could not have died in a sudden catastrophe. Again, the change in climate is the most likely explanation. Other Ice Age animals have continued to exist in the warmer climate that now prevails.

\textbf{Ice Age animals and creation}

At the end of the last article, we concluded that God has been actively creating on earth for many millions of years. His most recent creation is the human race, about 6000 years old according to scriptural genealogies.

Mammoths and other Ice Age animals are part of his earlier creative works. Although very much later than dinosaurs, they also appear to be part of this long period of creation leading up to the creation of Adam and Eve.

In the last issue, I discussed three possible interpretations of Genesis 1 which accounted for dinosaurs.

\textbf{Evidence for early man}

In addition to mammoth bones and carcasses, various artefacts made of mammoth bone and ivory have also been uncovered. Forks, spoons and spears were carved out of tusks, ribs were shaped into axe handles and clubs were carved from leg bones. Hundreds of paintings and engravings of woolly mammoths have been also found on the walls and floors of caves throughout Europe, from northern Spain to northern Siberia.

All this suggests that at the time of the mammoth, more than 10,000 years ago, there were intelligent creatures capable of drawing and making tools. Were these men before Adam or should we consider them as some form of intelligent ape? How these creatures fit into the Bible record of human beings will be discussed, God willing, in the final article of this series.

\textbf{4. Hominids: men or apes?}

We are supposed to have begun as an ape-like creature on all fours, then progressed to a hunched and hairy half-man half-ape, finally ending up the fully erect and not-so-hairy modern human being. Almost all books on evolution contain a diagram displaying this fanciful family tree. Of course, there is not a scrap of evidence that some hairy primate was our distant ancestor but it is not my purpose here to argue against the theory of evolution.

Instead I wish to focus on the creatures that make up these family trees. What evidence is there for early man-like creatures? Is it possible, scientifically and biblically, that men lived before the time of Adam? In this final article on prehistoric animals, we will look at the evidence for hominids (pre-historic man-like creatures) and consider how they might fit into the biblical record of Creation.

\textbf{Monkey business}

From the time Darwin published his \textit{Origin of the Species} in 1859, the hunt was on to find the "missing link" -- the half-man half-ape which was supposed to link the ancestry of human beings with apes. Several scientists became obsessed with the idea of discovering some intermediate animal and spent vast amounts of money and time searching for it. It is not surprising then, that several hoaxes were perpetrated and several other claims were made based on very little evidence.

"Java man" was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois. Initially it consisted of nothing more than a single molar tooth and a broken skull cap. A year later, a leg-bone and another molar tooth were found fourteen metres away and immediately associated with the earlier fragments. The public were fed detailed pictures of Java man showing a carefully-lined and hairy face -- all constructed from a thigh bone, two teeth and a skull fragment which were almost certainly from different animals! Later it was found that Dubois had concealed the fragments of other bones found at the same site beneath his dining-room floor.

Worse was still to come in the unscrupulous search for early man. In the 1920s, a single fossil tooth was thought to be "evidence of man's descent from the ape" and the creature from which it came was labelled "Nebraska man". Again, detailed pictures of the supposed man appeared in the newspapers complete with exotic prehistoric surroundings. Later, the tooth was found to belong to an extinct pig!

The ready acceptance of "Piltdown man" also shows the enormous prejudice that was widespread in the scientific world. Discovered in 1912, it consisted of a few skull fragments, an ape-like jaw and some fossil teeth together with some stone tools. For 40 years it was accepted as evidence of early man until the jaw was discovered to be from a 500 year-old orangutan which had been stained to look older and the tools were found to be doctored. Recent evidence suggests it was planted there by an anthropologist to discredit his rival.

Clearly, a strong public curiosity in the supposed evolution of man and deeply held scientific prejudices led to these extraordinary attempts to find one of our "ancestors". The fossil evidence is so fragmentary and ambiguous that palaeontologists have often made what they like of their finds.

These days, scientists are a little more cautious about the evidence and it is usually checked several times by different scientists before it is accepted. But there are still jealous disputes between rival anthropologists and imaginative reconstructions based on very little evidence. However, there have been some genuine finds that cannot be dismissed as hoaxes or pure fantasy.

\textbf{Australopithicus}

In 1924, part of a skull, a lower jaw and a few teeth were found in South Africa by Australian anatomist Raymond Dart. It looked rather like the skull of an ape but the teeth looked more like human teeth and the spinal chord entered the base of the skull indicating an animal which walked on two legs rather than four. Since then, several other bone fragments thought to belong to similar animals have been discovered at various sites in Africa. By far the best preserved remains are those of a small adult female discovered by anthropologist Don Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974. He discovered about half of her skeleton and named her Lucy. All these animals are thought to belong to the same family and are called \textit{Australopithicus. }They are all dated between 2 million and 3 ¹/₂ million years ago.

Not just bones but footprints have been found. In 1978, anthropologist Mary Leakey discovered two trails of human-like footprints preserved in a mud of volcanic ash in Tanzania. The mud has since turned to rock and is dated to be several million years old. Since no other two-legged creatures have been found from this era, the footprints probably came from Australopithicus too.

But what were they? Anthropologists have argued for years about whether they lived in trees or mainly on the ground, how hairy they were, whether they walked upright or slouched like an ape, and so on. Despite the confident illustrations that anthropologists are so fond of, there is no way of knowing. All that can be said is that it seems some form of two-legged ape-like animals, now extinct, existed in Africa several million years ago.

Anthropologists make much of the primitive tools that have been discovered with the remains of Australopithicus. They appeared to have used bones as weapons and stones for crude knives. This, it is claimed, makes them a form of early man. But chimpanzees are known to fashion tools too. So the ability to make crude tools is only evidence of some intelligence -- it does not prove the animal is in any way human.

\textbf{Neandertal men and similar creatures}

Several later fossils of hominids have also been discovered. Because these seem to be more like humans than Australopithicus was, they are given names like \textit{Homo habilis }and \textit{Homo erectus} and the most recent fossils are called \textit{Homo sapiens} as we are. These fossils range between 2 million and 10,000 years old.

The best-known creatures from this period are commonly called Neandertal men and Cro-Magnon man, named after the places in which they were first found. But these are just two groups of many. Some of the evidence for man-like creatures in this period is summarised below.

\textbf{New Stone Age men}

About 10,000 years ago, there was an enormous advance in civilization. Suddenly, plants began to be cultivated and animals were domesticated. Neandertal man and his contemporaries were content to hunt and gather food from what was around them; but these new men were farmers. Scientists refer to this period as the "Neolithic (or New Stone Age) revolution". They do not know why the change was so sudden.

For Bible believers, this sounds remarkably like the creation of Adam and the beginning of the human race. Not surprisingly, the earliest remains of this new civilization have been found in the Middle East. Sickles with small flint blades and pestles and mortars have been found. Remains of many young mature animals of the same size is evidence of domestication; they seem to have been kept until they reached their peak condition and then butchered. One of the best documented sites is Jericho which provided the first evidence of buildings, pots and cloth. Trading and bartering also seems to have first occurred at this time: various artefacts such as shells from the Red Sea and gems from the Sinai have been found in the earliest levels of Jericho. This archaeological picture of Neolithic life is very similar to the description of early civilization found in Genesis 4. The only problem is the dates differ by a few thousand years.

\textbf{Dating}

In the second article, we calculated from scriptural data that Adam lived a little more than 6,000 years ago. How much more depends on how many generations are missing from the biblical genealogies and we have no way of knowing that. But it would be stretching the biblical record to push the 6,000 year figure back more than a couple of thousand years.

On the other hand, the Neolithic revolution is dated to about 10,000 years ago using radiometric dating methods. Creationists often point out that radiometric dating methods assume conditions on earth have remained much the same over time and so the figures may be quite wrong given the changed conditions due to the Flood and Creation itself. The argument is correct, but the conclusions usually drawn are not. To shrink dates of millions of years to thousands of years would mean the radioactive decay rates would have to be so much faster that the planet would be a molten mass. However, it is possible that God has changed the earth's conditions and the decay rates may have altered by up to about 30%.

If the radiometric dates are out by this much, then we still have many millions of years to account for since dinosaurs, but it would give a figure of about 7,000 - 8,000 years for the beginning of civilization as defined by scientists. That fits well with the creation of Adam as described in Scripture.

\textbf{Men before Adam?}

What then do we make of 'men' before Adam? These probably provide the greatest scientific difficulty for Bible believers. While some hominids such as Australopithicus were nothing but ape-like animals, others such as Neandertal men can not be so easily dealt with. The evidence of their existence and antiquity is too great to ignore, yet they are too similar to human beings to dismiss as some extinct ape.

Let us be quite clear that Adam was a real person from whom all human beings are descended. "From one man he made every nation" (Acts 17:26). Doctrines of sin and death depend on this fact too. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." (Rom 5:12-13).

The problem lies in our definition of man. Anthropologists define man as an intelligent, upright creature who uses tools. But the Bible describes man as those who are descendants of Adam and have been created in the image of God. While the early pre-historic men may have looked like humans and had the ability to make crude tools, light fires and cook food, they certainly were not the descendants of Adam and there is no evidence that they had any concept of God at all.

The best solution seems to be that there were man-like creatures who existed for many thousands of years before Adam, but God allowed them to die out before he created the human race.

\textbf{Conclusions}

The view I have taken in this series is that God has been creating on earth for many millions of years. The evidence is overwhelming that dinosaurs, mammoths, hominids and other animals have lived on earth for an extraordinarily long time. Although this may contradict our interpretations of Genesis 1, it is quite possible to reconcile the biblical and natural records (see the second article, March 1994).

A natural reaction is to reject the science as "worldly wisdom" and refuse to accept any interpretation of Genesis other than the one already held. The danger of such an approach is that the scientific evidence for ancient life-forms is mounting rapidly, and more and more of our members are having to grapple with it. If we rigidly cling to our current notions, others may see science and Scripture as incompatible and lose faith.

We assert our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when we refuse to consider alternative views. Not only can Scripture shed some light on science, but science can shed some light on Scripture. To try to correlate the scriptural and natural records is not to dishonour biblical authority, but to grapple with our proper task of interpreting God's word and to honour him as our Creator.