|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." --- Jesus Christ. "The Truth will set you free." --- Jesus Christ. I am a free man. In more ways than one. As of Wednesday afternoon I am free of my daily obligation to sit in a cube 30 miles from my home. I am free of the burden of serving a man who already has his own jet airplane and a red sports car. I am free of deadlines and commitment. I am free from high technology, including high speed internet access. I'm presently enjoying the free public library. Whatever Jesus has in mind for me to do next, I am ready for him to set me free on that task. For now, I'm trusting in him. Pray for me for discernment. Pray for my family as we face the challenges of freedom from gainful employment. I know most people would think of themselves as a statistic, but I was a statistic before I was free. Now I'm just on the other side of the scale - it is still the same scale. There is no getting off the merry go round, there's just the question of which one to ride and who you're riding it with. I choose to ride with Jesus. He is Lord of the merry go round of life and jobs and all such things. It isn't about me. It never was. May his will be done. And may his merry go round be filled with love and joy for all. Whether we move or stay, whether I find good work in a week or a year, I will believe and trust in him. In the meanwhile, it is entirely likely that I will not be posting here very often for a while. I hope you all will understand. If anyone wants my private email just say so in a comment or a personal message - I'll get an email with your message - xanga generates them automatically. God bless you all and thanks to all who have been such wonderful support to me all this time. And even though I am no longer the "FKI Professor" in real life, I'm still the same person. Thank you one and all. | | |
| “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.” Job 40:15-18 (ESV)
Few of God’s creatures capture the imagination like mighty dinosaurs. Evolutionists tell us dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. They tell us man first appeared as much as a million years or so ago to perhaps just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Although they cannot give an exact figure for dinosaur’s departure or man’s arrival, they are uniformly adamant that man and dinosaur never lived together. But does the fact that dinosaurs are extinct today necessarily require that they became extinct millions ago? Why are Evolutionists so certain dinosaurs could not have roamed the earth at the same time as man?
The biblical account plainly reveals that God made land animals on the sixth day of the Creation week (Gen 1:24). Dinosaurs fit the description of creatures made on the sixth day. There is no biblical account of animal extinction prior to the completion of the creation week. There is no room in [a plain reading of] the Creation account for dinosaur extinction before the arrival of man. This can only mean dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as man.
Exactly how dinosaurs became extinct is as much a mystery for Creationists as for Evolutionists. Both camps propose a range of likely causes fitting with their respective models. The important difference is not how, but when. Popular Evolutionist theories about dinosaur extinction generally involve a major break in the food chain caused by catastrophic climate change, perhaps caused by an asteroid impact or massive volcanic activity. The prime Creationist theory is that although dinosaurs were represented on Noah’s ark, most were unable to survive for long on the initially barren post-flood earth. They then suppose the few dinosaurs hardy enough to survive the first years after the flood were probably hunted either for food or to eliminate threats to humans and their livestock. It is interesting, if you step back from these two theories, to see the degree of similarity in the big picture. Aside from the time scale and the involvement of humans in the eventual elimination of most post-flood dinosaurs, both theories involve planetary catastrophe and difficulties with the food chain.
Regardless of how dinosaurs became extinct, the biblical account leaves no doubt that they roamed the earth with humans. The book of Job includes descriptions of great land and water creatures called Behemoth (Job 40:15-24) and Leviathan (Job 41) respectively. In those closing chapters of Job, God is confronting Job’s self-righteous attitude and displaying His own glory in order to humble Job. Job is shown two huge creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan. Behemoth is described as grazing and having strong loins and powerful belly. Behemoth’s tail is like a cedar, his sinews are knit together, his bones are like tubes of bronze, and his limbs like bars of iron. Behemoth is described as roaming far and wide and having no fear of swamps, mountains, or the Jordan River during the spring floods. God asks Job the rhetorical question, “Can anyone take him by his eyes or pierce his nose with a snare?” This creature is sometimes thought to be an elephant or rhinoceros, but those animals do not have great tails. They do not wade through floods. They prefer to graze on plains. Although these are fearsome beasts, God called Behemoth first or foremost of his great animal creations. It seems far more likely that Job saw what we would call a bracheasaur or brontosaur.
Leviathan is similarly fearsome and untamable, except that Leviathan is described as living in the sea. Leviathan has rows of teeth and tight rows of shields along his back. He sneezes light and breathes fire, has a great neck, and he is difficult if not impossible to capture or kill. This passage is sometimes thought to be the source (or product) of sea dragon myths. Some dinosaurs are known to have lived in the sea, such as plesiosaur. The matter of breathing fire at first sounds entirely contrived, but it may not be so far fetched as one might imagine. There are nearly 500 species of fish that give off electric charge or emit a phosphorescent glow. Some reptiles and numerous sea creatures are known to store venom and other toxins in their bodies, including certain types of oils. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that a creature could have existed once that combined electric charge with an abundant oil producing gland to “sneeze sparks.”
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the biblical account is that it describes creatures modern Evolutionary paleontologists claim were found only in the last two to three centuries. It seems highly unlikely a text written thousands of years ago could describe creatures buried for millions of years and only recently discovered – unless of course those creatures actually lived during the time the text was first written.
The bible is not the only ancient record depicting what we would call dinosaurs. Around the world there are museum displays of ancient art depicting the hunting of animals that do not have modern parallels, but do appear to be various types of dinosaurs. Most such artwork is very ancient, dating to the first several centuries after the Flood of Noah. Most well known are Chinese depictions of fire-breathing dragons. European folklore includes stories of its own great beasts, several of which are similar to the creature that the Beowulf tale calls a Grindel. There ancient oral and written records of creatures we would call pterodactyls such diverse places as western China and in the Upper Nile region. While any one of these might seem anecdotal at best, taken together they strongly suggest the survival of a diverse though shrinking dinosaur population up to near modern times.
Only a handful of reptile species exist today. The Gila monster is one example of a modern dinosaur surviving in relatively small numbers in Asia today. Like crocodiles and alligators, they require a warm climate. Snakes, turtles, and most lizards also prefer warmth. There is room to speculate that a few species may yet roam undiscovered and uncatalogued in remote places. It has long been speculated that the Loch Ness monster is some sort of plesiosaur and not just the imagination of some inebriated Scots.
Although we may not know the exact cause of dinosaur extinction, the fact that many species have become extinct presents its own set of problems for the theory of Evolution. In the modern age we see species becoming extinct every year, as we have for many decades. In all that time, we have never observed the spontaneous evolution of any new species. Of course we have seen minor adaptation and some mutation within the range of genetic variability of a given species, but there is not one single recorded case of the natural formation of an entirely new kind of organism through adaptation or mutation. The obvious problem is that kinds become extinct in nature but do not appear spontaneously as Darwinian theory predicts. There are more than five million genetically unique life forms alive today. Although new species are frequently discovered, discovery is far different from the idea of appearing through the process of Evolution. If Evolution were true, it would stand to reason based on the number of unique kinds existing now that the rate of new species development should outpace the rate of extinction. Instead, we observe several existing species going extinct every year and none appearing. This lopsided ratio fits the Creation model where no new kinds appear now although some kinds may become extinct. The Evolution model predicts an even or better ratio favoring appearance of new organisms.
| | |
| “I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.” Ezekiel 22:30 (NASB).
Although Evolutionists have presented various arguments as to why the gaps are not a big problem, they continue to hunt for a smoking gun to prove their case. Their quest is two fold – first to silence Creationists, second to remove lingering doubt in the minds of the public. A number of “missing links” have presented in an effort to fill in some of the gaps. While some are genuine and quite interesting, many fakes have created revenue and sensationalism with much less news of their later falsification.
In the 1860’s a fossil dubbed “archaeopteryx” was unearthed from a German quarry. Its unusual features include a tail resembling a lizard and unusual claws. It was first thought to be half-bird and half-reptile – the missing link from reptile to bird. Birds have a number of very distinct characteristics from reptiles including wings, feathers, wishbone, weight distribution, and so forth. Studies have proven this animal is a member of a now extinct group of birds and was not at all reptilian. Even using evolutionary index fossil dating, this particular bird is supposed to have lived later than its supposed progeny, not before. Although this was a genuine and fascinating find, it fails to fill any gaps.
Darwin’s tree of life and its supporters tell us fish grew legs and came on land. The problem is that there are no fish with leg precursors. The nearest such animal, the coelacanth, was thought extinct in the Mesozoic era until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. It was found to have a body and bone structure identical to it’s supposedly millions of years old fossilized ancestors. This “prehistoric” fish does not have legs or any “precursor” to legs. That it lives today testifies to its uniqueness as a kind rather than its supposed place as a transitional creature.
A more recent example of a supposed transitional fossil, called Archaeoraptor, was presented in 1999 as part bird and part dinosaur. It was touted as clear evidence of a missing link until it was proven to be a fake. A Chinese paleontologist created it by gluing a dinosaur tail onto the fossil of a now extinct bird. Unfortunately many fake fossils are presented as new finds because they are very profitable.
In Florida another fossil was dubbed “bambiraptor.” It was a chicken sized dinosaur with what was purported to be turkey DNA. A reconstruction presented to the public used certain bird elements, such as eagle eyes, to make it appear more birdlike. The DNA evidence, it turns out, was actually contamination from a technician’s lunch.
Among the most interesting and compelling to the general public are fossils believed to represent the transition toward modern man from some pre-human ancestor. Of them, Java Man is thought to be the ultimate icon of missing links. Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois discovered Java Man in Indonesia in 1891/92. What he found was a skull fragment among some bones by a riverbank. Many people believe Java Man included a complete skull which was smaller than modern man’s. This idea was meant to prove earlier man had lower intelligence. Java Man actually included only a skullcap along with a few teeth and a femur. Analysis of the skullcap shows that while the bones were from a relatively small human, the brain capacity was well within modern norms.
Neanderthal has a more pronounced brow and slightly different head shape. There are a few dozen samples of these various skulls and other bones. These samples have all yielded brain sizes well within the normal range of modern humans. Other bones from these bodies, when found, have shown little if any other differences from modern man. The brow and skull differences could easily be explained by disease or, more likely in light of the biblical account, great age. The racial variation of homo erectus and especially Neanderthal compared to homo sapien have been wildly exaggerated in artistic renderings to promote the concept of Darwin’s tree. Examination of physical evidence shows the differences between these races are superficial.
Once the illusions are exposed and we are faced with the fact that early man is nothing other than early man, the next avenue is to pursue similarity between ape and man. Taxonomic classifications are based on clear distinctions between organisms of varying degrees of similarity. DNA similarity is also used as evidence for Evolution. In spite of the difficulty in DNA coming to be by Evolution, the relative similarity in DNA structure is what Evolutionists concentrate on. Ape DNA, we are often told, is about 99% similar to human DNA. This number is grossly exaggerated, based largely on similarities in specific certain similar genes. It does not consider the broader range of genetic material, interstitial DNA strands, and the incredible fact that humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. It is interesting to note that using the same criteria, mouse DNA is also roughly 99% similar to human DNA. Obviously great similarity does not matter nearly as much as minute differences.
Darwin’s original “tree of life” was essentially just a spreadsheet. Earnst Haeckel, a contemporary of Darwin, published sketches of a tree with branches depicting various kinds of life with differences being more minute as you move from trunk to branch to twig. He based his research on the same sources used by Darwin and quickly capitalized on Darwin’s work when it was published. Haeckel then published a set of sketches as vivid proof of similarity of species at their earliest stages of development. The images showed embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side by side at three stages of development. The similarities are supposed to support his and Darwin’s tree of life sketches and the idea of common ancestry.
In the 1860s Haeckel’s drawings were proven false. Modern photographs of embryos of these creatures do not match Haeckel’s drawings. His drawings were deliberately doctored to misrepresent the real appearance of the embryos. Although thoroughly discredited, evolutionists persist in promoting this myth even today. The false images and romantic lore are compelling to impressionable minds.
Those who continue to promote Haeckel’s lie conveniently disregard the reasons why the embryo art is false. Embryo selections were “cherry picked” to give the closest appearance of similarity. There are several classes of vertebrates, yet Haeckel only used examples from a few that came closer to providing the desired result. He then compounded similarities by “editing” the pictures. Haeckel also claimed the images were from the earliest stages of embryonic development. That was also untrue. His drawings were based on mid-term development when the cells have begun to develop and grow, after the first several rounds of cell reproduction and before they begin to take on truly unique appearance. During this period there is greater similarity than either early cell division or the later obvious development of body structure.
Following in Haeckel’s footsteps, in 1996 Life published pictures of a human embryo at a stage that made it look as if the embryo had something resembling gills. Many modern biology books promote similar ideas about the appearance of the human embryo. Of course the folds of skin at a certain stage when the embryo is still doubled over itself may look a bit like gills, but it is a normal stage of embryonic development. Most of us have folds in our adult skin, but no one suggests those folds could be used for breathing under water.
In spite of all this, many modern textbooks still use Haeckel’s drawings or something similar as proof of evolution. Evolutionists who are aware of these problems still claim that while the details contain errors, the concept is still true. It is not true. Most textbooks used in high schools and college biology classes still support Haeckel’s concept if not the artwork itself. Haeckel’s basic argument was that similarity argues for evolution. Similarity of design is just as easily argued, but the argument of design is unacceptable in the modern classroom. Design also accounts for the differences, parallelisms, and other observations of nature where evolution fails. It is a travesty that science has been sacrificed on the altar of religious dogma – the religion of naturalism known as Darwinian Evolution. Perhaps the Lord’s brother, James, said it best when he said, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (Jas 1:27, ESV).
| | |
| Amos 2:11-12
And I raised up some of your sons for prophets,
and some of your young men for Nazirites.
Is it not indeed so, O people of Israel?”
declares the Lord.
“But you made the Nazirites drink wine,
and commanded the prophets,
saying, ‘You shall not prophesy.’
Mt 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
I have always heard it said that the bible doesn't explain why people believed Messiah would be called a Nazarene. I guess not too many folks read Amos. That's a real shame. There's a lot more to learn from this passage in Amos than simply the reason behind Mt 2:23. What else do you see when you look at this passage? Do you see any application for today?
| | |
| Babies don't speak English.
Okay. Since nobody got it, here's the meaning of the parable:
New Christians don't speak theology. Those of us who study the word regularly and for a long time take a lot for granted. It is good to eat meat if you've got the teeth for it, but it is foolish to expect a newborn to be nourished by the same nutrients.
| | |
|
True
