Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use

As young-earth creationists, we believe many of the scientific facts on display in the world around us are best explained in light of the historical events recorded in the Book of Genesis, chapters 1-11. Creation science is the field in which we investigate the created world through the lens of God’s Word. However, it is important to recognize that creation science is, in fact, a science. As such, though it is based on the infallible Word of God, we are fallible human beings. We are subject to misinterpret Scripture and scientific facts. Science marches on, sometimes faster than we would like! We must frequently check ourselves to ensure we stay up to date with our best understanding of God’s Word and His world.

In this article, we highlight a number of popular but misinformed arguments creationists use, but should reconsider. Though many use these in a genuine attempt to argue in favor of a young earth, the arguments themselves are either not scientifically accurate or not Scripturally accurate. We will update this page from time to time, so be sure to check back often!

• Archaeology arguments
• Bible arguments
• Biology arguments
• General Science arguments
• Geology arguments
• Human Evolution arguments
• Paleontology arguments

---

Archaeology

Ancient and Historical Artwork Shows Dinosaurs Existed Until Recent Times

There are paintings, carvings, and other forms of artwork depicting animals that vaguely resemble known dinosaurs from the fossil record. Well-known examples include the Angkor Wat stegosaur, the Kachina Bridge sauropod petroglyph, and the Ica Stones. The problem with many of these findings is that they depict out-dated restorations of dinosaurs. They often portray the alleged dinosaurs dragging their tails, or standing upright like a kangaroo. Dinosaur anatomy did not allow for the animals to take these positions in life. Even if they truly represented depictions of dinosaurs, this does not automatically mean dinosaurs existed up through the Middle Ages. Another possibility is that they represent descriptions of dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures passed down from Noah’s time or even earlier.

Learn more:
Stegosaur: The Dead Clade Walker of Cambodia? (New Creation Blog)
Ica Stones, Acambaro Figurines, and Good Arguments (Creation Ministries International)

Ron Wyatt Found ___ (fill in the blank)

Ron Wyatt was an amateur explorer. He became highly popular in Christian circles when he promoted claims of having found and/or identified many exciting biblical artifacts. These included Noah’s ark, the ark of the covenant, and chariot wheels in the Red Sea. Unfortunately, Wyatt did not properly document or publish his findings. Lacking evidence, it is impossible to scientifically verify his claims.

Learn more:
Has the Ark of the Covenant Been Found? And Noah’s Ark? Pharaoh’s Drowned Army? What about the Garden of Eden? (Creation Ministries International)

---

Bible

Noah’s Ark Landed on Mount Ararat

For centuries, explorers have ascended Mount Ararat in search of Noah’s Ark, and many have claimed to have found it. Yet so far, none of these claims have held up under scrutiny, and Noah’s Ark remains elusive. While it is quite possible Noah’s ark has not survived the passing millenia, there may be another reason it has not come to light on Mount Ararat. Perhaps it was never there in the first place. 

Although many biblical scholars assume that the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, a careful reading of Genesis 8:4 reveals that “the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” The wording of this passage suggests that rather than landing specifically on Mount Ararat, the Ark’s final resting place was somewhere in the mountainous region of Ararat. This broadens the scope of possible sites for the Ark. Perhaps future explorations in the region will uncover evidence of its landing site. 

Learn More:
The Search for Noah’s Ark (New Creation Blog)

Vapor Canopy Theory

The Vapor Canopy model suggests that there was no rain before the Flood. Instead, water was caught up in a gaseous or ice canopy enveloping the entire globe. This canopy dissipated when the Flood began, producing 40 days and nights of rain. Most young-earth scientists reject this model today because biblical and scientific evidence previously used to bolster the model has been found wanting. A canopy thick enough to hold enough water to completely submerge the earth would make conditions too hot for life to survive on the surface. Also, references to “waters above” in Genesis occur both in pre-Flood and post-Flood descriptions, suggesting these were not the waters that fell in the days of Noah.

Learn More:
Heat Problems Associated with Genesis Flood Models—Part 3: Vapour Canopy Models (Answers Research Journal)

There Was No Rain Before the Flood

The idea that there was no rain before the Flood comes from a common misconception of Genesis:

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.”

Genesis 2:4-6, ESV

This passage describes a very particular time, the period before God made man, and before certain types of plants had sprouted. At this point there had not been rain, and the Bible seems to imply that this is one of the reasons why certain plants had not yet grown. If this interpretation is correct, it suggests that rain together with man’s work would cause the plants to sprout later. Either way, it would be erroneous to extrapolate the fact that rain had not yet fallen at this particular time to the rest of the pre-Flood era.

Learn More:
Did It Rain Before the Flood? (Let’s Talk Creation)

---

Biology

Species Don’t Change

The creation model has long ago abandoned the idea of “species fixation.” In fact, creationism relies heavily on the notion that God designed species to change. Natural selection and mutations, while not creative forces, are commonplace in the natural world. Environmental changes in nature are also driving forces of physiological change. If God had not designed his creation with the ability to physiologically adapt in response to external pressures in the environment, many species alive today would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. 

The diversification of life over the course of thousands of years is a testament to the creative intelligence and eternal foresight of a Creator, who knew all along that adaptations would be necessary for his creation to thrive. Mutations and environmental changes in nature did not take God by surprise. He invented DNA to store information and designed it so perfectly that even today—despite thousands of years of mutations—life still flourishes. Thus, the ability for species to change is not only an observable phenomena, but a fundamental part of the creation model.

Learn more:
Species were designed to change, part 1 (Creation Ministries International)

The Evolution of New Functions (e.g. Lenski Experiments)

In 1988, a Michigan State professor undertook a long-term experiment designed to show evolution in action. The researcher, Richard Lenski, designed a brilliant experiment in which E. coli cultures were grown on glucose (sugar) cultures. The bacteria were allowed to consume the glucose until scarcity and starvation conditions were reached, then the bacteria were transferred to a fresh culture. This pattern was repeated continually, and as of 2022, 75,000 generations of E. coli have been successfully grown in succession. Predictably, the lack of “macroevolution” has creationists excitedly declaring the Lenski experiments have proven evolution to be a myth. This is an overstatement. 

While the Lenski experiments did not demonstrate the dramatic evolutionary change Lenski and other evolutionists hoped it would, the sheer number of bacteria generations revealed some new traits that did develop in the bacteria. For example, the more recent bacteria cultures grow 80% faster than original cultures. Some populations have adapted to use a different (though still carbon-based molecule) called citrate as a power source, which is a new function the ancestral population did not have. These are not examples of evolutionary leaps by any means, but declaring these experiments to be the end of evolution theory is a dramatic miscalculation.

In short, Lenski’s research may not support macroevolution, but it does suggest that some new functions can develop through mutation and natural selection. 

Learn more:
Lenski Experiment Proves Macroevolution A Myth (archivesofcreation.com)
Evolution in real time – Harvard Gazette

The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution

The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes how energy goes from a “more useful” to a “less useful” state over time. Some claim this contradicts the evolution of life over time, from simple organisms to complex ones. This argument is problematic because it does not account for the fact that, although the entropy of the universe increases as a whole, this does not mean that every system in the universe has increasing entropy. With the addition of energy from the outside, open systems can decrease in entropy to a more highly ordered state. 

Learn More:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall (Answers in Genesis)

---

General Science

We Don’t Need to Do Creation Research, Just Have Faith!

The Bible is a theological text that bears witness to God’s relationship to mankind. It teaches that, in order for us to have a relationship with God, we must have faith. Yet, God does not require blind faith. For example, Deuteronomy 18:21–22 explains how to know a true prophet from a false one. Rather than blindly trusting a prophet, the people were to watch and see if his prophecies came true or not. Similarly, we can use the verifiable historical events recorded in the Bible as a way of knowing that God’s Word is true. 

Unfortunately, mainstream science has systematically worked to undermine the historical reliability of the Bible, teaching that key biblical events such as Creation, the Flood, and the Exodus did not occur. This is why creation research is important. It is not reasonable to ask people to put their faith in a God whose word is false. Creation scientists must demonstrate that the Bible is historically and scientifically sound. Knowing that God’s word is true enables us to safely put our faith in Him. 

Learn more:
The Philosophy of Creation Science (New Creation Blog)

---

Geology

The Geologic Column Doesn’t Exist

The geologic column is a conceptualized representation of the rock layers making up the earth’s crust. Some young-earth creationists do not believe a real, universal geologic column exists because we have not found all of the layers in any one place on the planet. However, the geologic column concept actually speaks to the order in which the layers should occur when we do find them. 

For example, basal Cambrian sandstones are always situated below Mississippian limestones, and Mississippian limestones are always located beneath Pennsylvanian coalbeds, which in turn are always located underneath Cretaceous chalk deposits. There are exceptions to this general pattern, but these occur in areas where mountain building has occurred. In these places, the rock layers have been warped, often pushed up and even flipped over. Where mountain building processes have not occurred, the order is generally consistent. We can trace this sequence all around the world and suggest that similar processes occurred over a wide geographic extent at a particular time in earth history. This is very consistent with a global Flood perspective! So by denying the reality of the geologic column, creationists are also denying excellent evidence for the Flood.

Learn more:
Sifting Through Layers of Meaning (Answers in Genesis)

The Flood Created the Entire Geologic Record

Certainly, the global Flood of Noah’s day was responsible for a significant portion of the geologic record. However, the Flood narrative in the Book of Genesis only records the Flood’s geographic extent, not its stratigraphic extent. Therefore, we should not automatically assume that the entire geologic record formed during the Flood. This is an active area of research among young-earth geologists, and there is considerable disagreement. Some think the Flood formed a small portion of the geologic record, with a considerable amount forming before and afterward. Others think that almost all of the geologic layers, except those associated with the post-Flood Ice Age, were laid down during the Flood. There is general agreement, however, that at least the Paleozoic and Mesozoic rock layers formed during the Flood.

Learn more:
Where is Noah’s Flood in the Geologic Record? (New Creation Blog)

Radiometric Dating is All Bunk

There is good evidence that radioactive decay occurred at much faster rates in the past than it does in the present. Because of this, some young-earth creationists think the methods used to attain these dates, usually radiometric dating, are completely useless. In reality, however, radiometric dating techniques are still helpful for young-earth researchers, not reflecting the passage of absolute time, but relative time. For example, if we discovered a rock that was dated 66 million years old and another rock that was dated 5 million years old, we know–regardless of absolute time–that the first rock is older than the second.

Learn more:
What Should Christians Think About Radiometric Dating? Pt. 1 (New Creation Blog)
What Should Christians Think About Radiometric Dating? Pt. 2 (New Creation Blog)

Hydroplate Theory is the Answer to _________ (Fill in the Blank)

Mechanical engineer Dr. Walt Brown proposed hydroplate theory to explain very diverse aspects of the universe. These include not only how the Flood occurred, but also the order of fossils, the tilted axis of the earth, and the origin of asteroids and comets. Chiefly, this model argues that it can accomplish all of this via purely natural cause and effect and no influence from miracles. 

While this model has gained popularity among certain laylevel creationists, creation scientists have identified significant problems with it as it exists in its current form. This does not automatically mean hydroplate theory is scientifically useless, as all Flood models have unresolved challenges. However, because hydroplate theory claims to not require any miracles, it is up to its advocates to answer critiques of the model in the form of technical, scientific publications, something they have not yet done. Until that time comes, why should we expect hydroplate theory to convince conventional scientists if it does not yet convince other creation scientists?

Learn more:
Hydroplate Theory: The Strongest Theory? (Creation Ministries International)

Pangaea’s Continents Didn’t Fit

It is true that the edges of modern continents do not precisely interlock when brought together to reconstruct ancient supercontinents, such as Pangaea. For example, the continents will not fit together unless Central America is removed. But this is because the continents themselves have undergone significant changes since their Pangaean days. Central America did not exist until well after Pangaea broke apart. It formed via tectonic activity much later in geologic history.

Learn more:
Noah’s Lost World (Answers in Genesis)

---

Human Evolution

Neanderthals Were Just Old People

The claim that Neanderthal fossils are the bones of post-flood people who were living for hundreds of years are probably incorrect. Dr. Jack Cuozzo, an orthodontist, is the most famous proponent of this view. He argued that if the cranial growth of modern humans continued for hundreds of years they would develop Neanderthal features. The most obvious problem with this argument is the presence of juvenile Neanderthals in the fossil record. If Neanderthal features are the result of old age, they should not be present in juveniles.

Learn More:
Ask a Creationist: Are Neanderthals Just Really Old People? (Core Academy of Science)

Lucy’s Hip Was Manipulated

Some creationists have claimed that scientists have altered the original pelvic bones of the A.l. 288-1 skeleton to make them fit into a human-like configuration. This story is based on a documentary about the discovery of Australopithecus afarensis. One scene in the documentary depicted Dr. Owen Lovejoy using a dremel to separate the various pieces of the pelvis. Some creationists misinterpreted this scene, and believed he was actually cutting the priceless fossil to pieces. Dr. Lovejoy actually made a cast of the pelvis so he could cut the deformed pieces from each other and fit them back together. Lucy’s hip was deformed in fossilization. Multiple large cracks run around the sacroiliac joint. The unreconstructed version of Lucy’s pelvis is so deformed as to be biologically impossible in a living organism. Reconstruction of the pelvis is needed, and necessarily results in a more human-like appearance of the fossil.

Learn More:
Why Did Lucy’s Pelvis Need to be Reconstructed? (New Creation Clips)

Paluxy Tracks Prove That Humans Walked with Dinosaurs

Strange, fossilized footprints often identified as “human tracks” have been discovered in the Paluxy River of Texas since the 1930’s. Since these tracks often occur alongside those of dinosaurs, some young-earth creationists have used them as evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Most young-earth scientists think that dinosaurs and humans did live at the same time before the Flood, but not in the same geographic regions. As such, finding human and dinosaur footprints together, as suggested at Paluxy River, would be unlikely.

Even going back to their initial discovery, other young-earth creationists were skeptical about the identification of these trackways. This has escalated since then, and today, most young-earth scientists do not consider the Paluxy tracks to be from humans. Some appear to have been artificially carved. Others are misidentified dinosaur tracks. Dinosaurs walked on their toes, not their whole foot. So a recent study proposed that these tracks were formed by two-legged dinosaurs walking through deep mud. When the dinosaur placed its foot down, the entire foot sunk into the mud. Then, when the dinosaur lifted its foot, mud would fill in the footprint, leaving a shallow footprint at the mud’s surface. This seems to have produced the elongated “human-looking” track.

Learn More:
Humans Walked with Dinosaurs? (Let’s Talk Creation Podcast)

Humans Made The Laetoli Footprints

Some creationists use the Laetoli footprints as evidence for an early origin of humanity. However, it is likely that australopithecines made these footprints, not humans. Fossils of the foot bones of australopithecines show they were probably capable of leaving behind the footprints. In fact, certain features of the footprints would not be expected if humans had made them. In addition, researchers have found fossils of Australopithecus afarensis at Laetoli. These fossils date back close to the time when the footprints were made. The oldest human fossils in the world are significantly younger than these trackways. This indicates that humans probably hadn’t yet migrated into Ethiopia at the time the footprints were made.

Learn More:
Who Made the Laetoli Footprints? (New Creation Blog)

If People Evolved from Apes, Why Are There Still Apes Today?

This argument is problematic because it makes incorrect claims about the way in which evolutionists believe this evolution to work. The origin of a distinct population does not mean that their ancestors will go extinct. For example, domestic dogs are descendants of wolves. These populations do not directly compete for resources, and as a result, neither has gone extinct. Evolutionists would envision a similar situation in human evolution. Supposedly, early humans evolved to adapt to particular niches and habitats not exploited by their ancestors. As a result, they would not have been in direct competition, and neither would need to go extinct.

Learn More:
Ask a Creationist: Why Are There Still Monkeys? (Core Academy of Science)

Semicircular Canals Prove that the Australopithecines Could not Walk Upright

The semicircular canals are part of the inner ear. These structures play an important role in balance. By CT scanning the skulls of fossils, scientists can see what their inner ear looked like. Analyses show that australopithecines had an inner ear more similar to chimpanzees than to humans. Some creationists have suggested that this might have prevented them from walking upright.

Research indicates that the shape of australopithecine’s semicircular canals would not preclude them from walking upright. Some scientists suggest that this might have made them less agile than humans. But, these scientists still think that australopithecines were habitual bipeds. Other scientists don’t think that the shape of the australopithecines canals would have limited their agility at all.

Learn more:
Can Lucy’s Inner Ear Tell Us How She Walked? (New Creation Clips)

---

Paleontology

A Dead Plesiosaur Was Caught Off the Coast of New Zealand

Anatomical and biochemical studies by both old-earth and young-earth scientists strongly indicate that this “plesiosaur” was actually the rotting corpse of a misidentified basking shark. The plesiosaur-like appearance was due to the shark’s jaws and gills being among the first body parts to rot off. This is a known phenomenon of basking shark carcasses that wash up on beaches around the world to this day.

Learn more:
Zuiyo-maru Carcass Revisited: Plesiosaur or Basking Shark? (Letter to the Editor) (Creation Research Society Quarterly, pgs. 292-298)

Torrential Hail Quick-Froze Woolly Mammoths at the Beginning of Noah’s Flood

Researchers find frozen carcasses of woolly mammoths exclusively in the localized deposits of loose and unsolidified rocks and sediment at the top of the geologic record. They do not find them at the base of the thick, widespread deposits of solid (lithified) sediment packages laid down during the Flood. This strongly suggests that woolly mammoths lived after the Flood. Moreover, only a few dozen frozen woolly mammoth carcasses are known. This is far fewer than we would expect if mountains of hail covered entire populations of mammoths at the same time. We also have evidence that some mammoth carcasses were scavenged and provided homes for fly larvae. This suggests that the mammoths were not instantly frozen solid. A more likely explanation for the preservation of mammoth carcasses is that catastrophic dust storms during the Ice Age buried them.

Learn more:
Were Siberian Woolly Mammoths Quick Frozen? (Answers in Genesis)

There Are Still Dinosaurs Alive Today

The notion that living non-avian dinosaurs still lurk in the dark, remote jungles and swamps of the world was popular among creationists in the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s. Yet, decades of searching and a great deal of money invested has turned up nothing. Given the rarity of truly remote corners of the world, and the fact that we have satellites, radar, cameras, cell phones with cameras, and other forms of technology, it is extremely unlikely that living dinosaurs would have escaped our attention by this point. As such, major young-earth creationist organizations have become skeptical toward the idea that dinosaurs are still living among us today.

Learn more:
Dinosaurs Are Almost Certainly Extinct (Creation Ministries International)

Animals Were Larger before the Flood than They Are Today

This is a holdover from the vapor canopy theory, which was popular in the late 20th century. It was once argued that the oxygen-enriched atmosphere allowed for animals of all kinds to become much bigger. Today, young-earth scientists point to biblical and scientific reasons why they consider the vapor canopy theory is no longer valid. 

While it is true that some kinds of animals were larger in pre-Flood times than they are today, this is not a general rule. For example, researchers have discovered fossils in caves of ten-foot tall kangaroos (Procoptodon), 20-foot monitor lizards (Varanus priscus), and ground sloths the size of elephants (Megatherium). These caves were carved into rock layers formed during or after the Flood, suggesting that whatever ventured into them did so after the caves were carved and after the Flood. Moreover, the largest animal ever known to exist is not found in pre-Flood or Flood rocks, and is still alive today. At over 200,000 pounds, the blue whale was larger than even the biggest dinosaur.

Learn more:
Journey to the Land Down Under (New Creation Blog)

Reptiles Never Stop Growing, So If Lizards Lived Longer, They Would Eventually Look Like the Dinosaurs We Know From the Fossil Record

While it is true that some modern reptiles never stop growing, a chameleon would never grow into a Triceratops. An iguana is not going to turn into a Tyrannosaurus, no matter how many cardboard fins and horns you glue onto it. This is because, contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs were not lizards. Modern reptiles, like crocodiles and lizards, walk with their legs sprawled out to the sides. But dinosaurs had special ankles and a hole in the hip socket (called the perforated acetabulum) that enabled them to walk perfectly balanced with their legs directly underneath them, like most mammals. 

Moreover, we have fossils of young dinosaurs, ranging from embryos and hatchlings. They more closely resemble their parents than any modern reptile. Another problem is that we actually have fossils of giant lizards and crocodiles, and they do not resemble dinosaurs. For example, Deinosuchus is a 40-foot cousin of the alligator, and megalania is a 20-foot relative of the Komodo dragon.

Learn more:
Claws, Maws, and Classification Laws (New Creation Blog)

There Is No Such Thing as a “Fossil Record”

The “fossil record” refers simply to the total number of fossils so far discovered. This also refers to the order in which researchers found them in the geologic record. The determination of this order has nothing to do with evolution. It is based on the presence of certain fossilized species that occurred in certain layers of the geologic record, but not in others. The general pattern of the fossil record was established long before Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution. Geologists of the early to mid-1800’s recognized they could correlate the sequence of fossils in an exposed outcrop in one location with another exposed outcrop elsewhere. Researchers can do this with fossils, as well as with the geologic layers containing them, around the world.

Learn more:
What is the Fossil Record? (New Creation Blog)

The Flood Is the Only Way to Explain Fossils

Many laymen creationists assert that fossils all formed during the year-long Flood of Noah’s day. But there is no Scriptural or scientific warrant for this, even for well-preserved fossils. Generally speaking, the requirement to turn an organism into a well-preserved fossil is rapid burial, not rapid burial specifically during the Flood. Most young-earth paleontologists think that there was regional and localized geologic activity—like floods, volcanic eruptions, and landslides—following the Flood, and perhaps even preceding the Flood as well. This would provide ample opportunity to bury organisms and preserve them as fossils. Make no mistake, there are definitely fossils that seem to have been buried in some type of watery catastrophe consistent with the Noahic deluge. However, there are also many fossils that appear to be from before and after the Flood as well.

Learn more:
A Wholistic View of Flood Geology (New Creation Blog)

Dinosaurs Did Not Have Feathers

Many creationists have been reluctant to accept that some dinosaurs had feathers. This is because they think that if feathered dinosaurs existed, this would prove they share common ancestry with birds. This is unbiblical because God made various kinds of flying creatures (which includes birds) on Day 5 of Creation Week, and various kinds of land creatures (like dinosaurs) on Day 6. However, this concern is based on a faulty premise that dinosaurs and birds must be dissimilar because they are unrelated. 

In reality, there is nothing unbiblical about these two groups of animals having features in common. After all, we still call bats “mammals” despite the fact that God created them on a different day than other mammals. So why can’t some dinosaurs have similarities with birds, including feathers? Fossil evidence for feathered dinosaurs is abundant. We know many species had feathers because we find them fossilized along with their skeletons. We can infer others had feathers because of certain skeletal evidence left behind. These include the presence of quill knobs (anchor points for wing feathers) on the forelimbs or a pygostyle (fused vertebrae on the end of the tail used to support large feathers).

Learn more:
Dino-Birds and Fuzzy Lizards (New Creation Blog)
Much Ado About Feathers (New Creation Blog)

The Horse Series Does Not Exist

The horse series is a sequence of animals in the fossil record that characterize the development of horses from small, multi-toed, forest-dwelling creatures like Eohippus to modern horses. Some creationists argue that this sequence does not actually exist. They argue that fossils of modern horses are found in layers lower than multi-toed horses. This claim is demonstrably incorrect. There are many places around the United States where researchers find the horse series, like John Day National Park in Oregon. Ascending the fossil-bearing rock layers in this region, we can observe Eohippus-like horses in the lower layers, and progressively more modern-looking horses until we get to the uppermost layers. Some creation scientists think the horse sequence represents two or three created kinds of horses. Others believe that most or all of these varieties belong to a single created kind that diversified after the Flood.

Learn more:
What Should Christians Make of Horse Diversification from a Multi-Toed Ancestor? (New Creation Blog)

T. Rex and Other Sharp-Toothed Theropods Ate Plants

Some people think that we cannot know what extinct animals, like theropods, ate based on the shape of their teeth. Prominent examples they often provide include the bamboo-eating giant panda and the fruit bat, which use their sharp teeth for ripping into tough vegetation. For this reason, creationists often portray dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor eating melons or pumpkins. 

However, this overlooks the fact that not all sharp teeth are the same. Most theropod dinosaurs specifically have ziphodont teeth. These teeth curve, blade-like in shape, and have tiny serrations running along the front and back (like a steak knife). Pandas, fruit bats, and other sharp-toothed plant eaters do not have teeth like this. The only animals with serrated, curved teeth comparable to those of most theropods are creatures like the carnivorous monitor lizards. The Komodo dragon is a prime example.

Learn more:
The Tyrant Who Would Be King (New Creation Blog)

No Animals Ate Meat Until After the Flood

There is no question that God designed animals for a diet of plants before the Fall (Genesis 1:30). However, some young-earth creationists extend this to the entire period of time between Creation and the Flood because this is when God gives Noah and his family permission to consume meat (Genesis 9:3). Note that God gives this permission to Noah and his family, not the animals. Nowhere does Scripture specify when animals began to eat other animals. Therefore, it is biblically permissible that animals had carnivorous tendencies before the Flood.

We even get some hints at this from Scripture. Genesis 6:11-12 describes the world leading up to the Flood as filled with violence, and that “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” This is why the Flood wiped out not only all humans, but also all air-breathing land animals not on the Ark. The fossil record conveys a long history of interactions between predator and prey. For example, researchers have found extinct sharks with fish and marine reptiles in their stomachs. Likewise, they have discovered Tyrannosaurus not only with the bones of other dinosaurs in their stomachs, but their teeth marks and dislodged teeth embedded in the bones of their prey. Another famous example is the “Fighting Dinosaurs,” where a Protoceratops and Velociraptor were preserved in the act of fighting.

Learn more:
The Fossil Record: Red in Tooth and Claw (New Creation Blog)

---