Dinosaurs In The Bible?

By Babu G. Ranganathan

The Bible doesn't mention everything under the Sun, but, interestingly, the Bible gives a description of an animal in the Book of Job 40:15-24 that can only refer to what we now know as a "dinosaur." The passage in Job says that the animal that God calls "Behemoth" has a tail like a cedar tree (no animal today has a tail like a cedar tree), and bones are like tubes of bronze and its limbs like the bars of iron.

Dinosaurs may have well existed in the time of Job who lived only a few hundred years after the worldwide flood described in Genesis. Dinosaurs were created in the sixth day of creation week along with other beasts and man.

Before the worldwide flood, Noah was commanded to build an ark to save a remnant of human kind and other landforms of life. According to the Genesis 6:14-16, the Ark was at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It was one long box that would be stable and couldn't capsize or overturn during the ravaging period of the flood.

Noah wasn't required to take every animal into the Ark, only two of each "kind," male and female of the land animals. Many of the sea animals would have been able to survive through the flood. The first pair of dogs in the Ark would have carried the recessive and dominant genes for producing all the varieties of dogs we have today. The same would be the case with all the other animals. God says in Genesis 1 ten different times that all life must reproduce after its "kind." We know from science that there are genetic limits to biological variations in species. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being. All the biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

God created species as complete and fully functional from the very beginning. They couldn't survive any other way. A half-evolved dog, for example, wouldn't be able to survive. Darwinian evolutionary theory would have us believe that, by the random forces of nature, partially-evolved species came into existence along with partially-evolved skin, muscles, nerves, tissues, organs and then survived over millions of years as they eventually became complete. What utter nonsense!

What about natural selection? Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved and be passed on to future offspring. That is what we call natural selection.

Natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest." But, this is exactly the problem for Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. How could species have survived if their vital organs were still evolving?

The only evolution in nature that is possible and that can really be called science is micro-evolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows. Only micro-evolution is observable and can be measured by the scientific method.

Macro-evolution, which teaches that variations in life can occur across biological kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes.

Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

What about "Junk DNA"? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Noah didn't have to seek for the animals. God said He would bring the animals to Noah. God may very well have caused the animals to hibernate in the Ark so feeding and taking care of them wouldn't have to be a problem. No doubt, dinosaurs would have very easily fit in the Ark.

We can surmise from the Bible that conditions on the earth were ideal before the Flood, but after the Flood the world was a hostile place where severe competition was necessary for animals to survive. God had placed the genes in species for limited adaptation in so that they could survive through the changing environment on earth after the flood.

Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earths past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the earth. The colossal effect changed the entire topography and climate of the earth. A major consequence of such a flood would have also been the Ice Age.

The Old Testament (i.e. Psalm 104) describes God as raising high mountains from the earth after the worldwide flood so that the waters would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon packed with its billions of fossils.

The Bible says that the Ark landed somewhere in the mountains of Ararat where the modern nation of Turkey is now located. There have been reports from individual mountain climbers of having seen the Ark. The eyewitnesses claim that the Ark had split in two or more sections and became petrified and is well-preserved in the freezing ice and cold temperatures at its altitude high up in the mountain range of Ararat. However, there is no concrete evidence yet of the Ark's existence.

If we should find the Ark, it would definitely be strong evidence for a worldwide flood. But, even without discovering the Ark we have physical evidence for a worldwide flood from the billions of fossils of plants and of animals in the earth.

What about the fossils? Hasn't science proved the earth and universe to be billions of years old? The articles (below) will answer these questions. Visit the author's site for more answers.

No Half-Evolved Dinosaurs

Evolutionary Dating Not Infallible Science

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East." The author's articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov