New Page 0

"...[T]he only “evidence” we need that dinosaurs and man lived together is Scripture—just as we would accept the Resurrection of Christ or creation ex nihilo without any independent “evidence.” (The root of this mistaken clamor over “evidence” is that people fail to recognize how their presuppositions actually shape how they interpret the evidence.) We who start from the Bible as our foundation accept the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs even before we ever consider the possibility that there was or is a Loch Ness Monster (for instance). (That said, we do believe that the many stories of “dragons” in cultures worldwide—stories that are eerily similar to what we know about dinosaurs—likely represent societal recollections of real human encounters with dinosaurs, perhaps as recently as a thousand years ago; the same goes for artistic depictions of dinosaurs hundreds of years before they were discovered—or, actually, “re-discovered”!)

Next, the carbon-14 dating that L.B. mentions might be one piece of evidence that we would have to interpret through our presuppositions. Some presuppose that the atmospheric production rate of carbon-14 has always been constant (though there’s no evidence for this), and then date certain items based on that presumption. We instead presuppose the age of the earth (based on the Bible) and, as a result, conclude carbon-14 production must have been different in the past. Note that the difference in views is not about the evidence, though; it’s about what one presupposes." Full text: Dinosaurs, Man, and the Bible.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Of course t-rex never became a bird, but his relatives likely did. And we do find them with feathers."

We find birds with feathers.

"According to evolutionists: Dinosaurs first evolved around 235 million years ago, long before man evolved.1 No human being ever lived with dinosaurs. Their history is recorded in the fossil layers on earth, which were deposited over millions of years. They were so successful as a group of animals that they eventually ruled the earth. However, around 65 million years ago, something happened to change all of this—the dinosaurs disappeared. Most evolutionists believe some sort of cataclysmic event, such as an asteroid impact, killed them. But many evolutionists claim that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, and thus they are not extinct but are flying around us even today.2

There is no mystery surrounding dinosaurs if you accept the Bible’s totally different account of dinosaur history.

According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.3 God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time.

Dinosaurs could not have died out before people appeared because dinosaurs had not previously existed; and death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a resultof Adam’s sin (Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 5:12, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils.

After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs?

Why Such Different Views?

How can there be such totally different explanations for dinosaurs? Whether one is an evolutionist or accepts the Bible’s account of history, the evidence for dinosaurs is the same. All scientists have the same facts—they have the same world, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe.

If the “facts” are the same, then how can the explanations be so different? The reason is that scientists have only the present—dinosaur fossils exist only in the present—but scientists are trying to connect the fossils in the present to the past..." Full text: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Response to comment [from other]: "Did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?"

People have been gullible for some time.

"Ultimately, there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (including biology, history, and geology), resulting in a Christian worldview; or starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview.

Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way. They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 4:20–24).

The Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. Thus, we have the evolutionary explanation for dinosaurs above.

But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence..." Full text: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "It is important to use our reason and evaluate the evidence honestly, not shut off our brains and stick with an absurdly literal creation account that matches the actual evidence not at all."

Then you do not believe the creation account as given in Genesis?

See:

Evolution vs. Creation.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "And 'we' as in paleontologists also find dinosaurs with fossil feather impressions and quill knobs--bony protrusions that are attachments for feathers."

That could be. It certainly does not mean that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Does one have to be a paleontologist to have a theory about what happened to the dinosaurs? Can men not have an opinion about babies because they have not had one?

"The Bible says nothing about 'dinosaurs'..."

The Bible does not use the word "dinosaur". The word "dinosaur" did not come into our language until 1842. But the Bible does mention large animals that sound very much like dinosaurs (See: Dinosaurs & the Bible) Liviathan, for example is mentioned in the book of Job (Job 3:8) which scholars believe may have been the first written book of the Bible.

"Your idea of the age of the earth is only based on adding up genealogical lists. The evidence we see in the world around us does not match these ideas."

My idea is irrelevant. What God says is all-important. The Grand Canyon is good evidence for a worldwide flood (as given in scripture). If we believe the genealogy as given in scripture, we come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years. It's always best to believe God since he was there and he has never been proven wrong. I happen to believe the correct number is 6,000 years for the age of the earth.

"[W]hy do we never find human, or modern mammal fossils of any kind intermixed with dinosaur fossils."

We find human fossils in layers that most creationists consider post-Flood. Most of these were probably buried after the Flood and after the scattering of humans from Babel. So it is true that human and dinosaur fossils have yet to be found in the same layers, but does that mean that long-age believers are correct?

What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?

The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)¹

The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case..." Full text: Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?

"The idea that animal death did not exist before the fall is biblically unsubstantiated..."

Were you there?

"Both humans and animals were vegetarians at the time of creation. In Genesis 1:29–30 the Lord said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”

This passage shows clearly that in God’s very good creation, animals did not eat each other (and thus, there was no animal death), as God gave Adam, Eve, and the animals only plants to eat. (It was was not until after the worldwide Flood of Noah’s Day—1,600 years later—that man was allowed to eat meat, according to Genesis 9:3.)" Full text: Why Does God's Creation Include Death and Suffering?

[AIG not credible]

Is Dr. Walt Brown credible? He received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)? He's rather brainy. You can read his entire book online (creationscience.com).

Why not address the issues instead of attacking people personally as leftist tend to do?

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "Say there sport...don't suppose you could give us a working definition of transitional fossil."

Transitional fossils are sometimes referred to as "missing links".

"[Y]ou don't mention the mechanism by which a genotypical change may provide code for new phenotypical characteristics."

How can a mutation correcting mechanism evolve by natural selection?

Natural selection is supposed to work by favoring certain traits that provide a selective advantage and eliminating those that are even slightly deleterious over the generations. The raw material of evolution is supposed to be the spontaneous mutations that will impact effective reproductive success. These so-called “beneficial mutations” will be selected for in future generations.

Cells have several mechanisms and methods for DNA repair—fixing various types of damage to DNA before it causes irreparable damage. While DNA repair mechanisms could be considered irreducibly complex, it can still be argued that natural selection would favor an organism with better DNA repair. This means that, however unlikely, evolutionists can still argue that natural selection could provide for DNA repair to evolve. Cells with mutations that improved DNA repair would be favored.

The mutation repair mechanism found in Arabidopsis is different. How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have? This may be the ultimate biological catch 22. A mutation repair mechanism can only provide a selective advantage to those individuals that have the mutations and get them fixed. It does nothing for any that lack the mutations and therefore would potentially be lost through mutation to itself or just by genetic drift (assuming the trait is coded somehow on the chromosomal DNA).

Notes:

In incomplete penetrance, not all of the individuals who carry a particular gene will have the phenotype.
An epigenetic change is one that affects the expression of a gene without changing the sequence. DNA methylation is an example of a way genes can be turned off without altering the sequence. A masking epigenetic change would cover over a mutant gene, changing the phenotype but not the DNA sequence. Full text: Startling plant discovery presents problems for evolution How can a mutation correcting mechanism evolve by natural selection?

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "Where does evolution require dinosaurs to have died out?"

It doesn't. Maybe secular scientist will revise their long-held assumptions about the theory of evolution and "millions of years".

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "[M]echanical engineering. My father is a mechanical engineer, he has 7 patents, he's highly intelligent but he doesn't know much about evolution..."

Are you suggesting because your father does not know much about evolution, Dr. Brown does not know much about young earth creation? Why don't you forget ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves and take a look at the data? We all have the same data (by "we" I mean people--secular and religious scientists and the people who read their work). How we interpret the data is what matters.

Let me tell you what Dr. Brown does address in his book In the Beginning. You are free to argue him point by point or dismiss the book in its entirety (this is a typical trait on the left--dismiss a person so that you do not have to address the science or the issues).

Dr. Brown discusses:

Part I of In the Beginning discusses, in quick overview, 136 categories of evidence from biology, astronomy, and the physical and earth sciences. More technical discussions and documentation are found in the author’s extensive endnotes.

Does the scientific evidence support evolution or creation?
What insights do genetics and the fossil record provide?
What discoveries in outer space relate to our beginnings?
How old is the earth?
Does Noah’s Ark exist? What is the CIA’s "Ararat Anomaly"?
Part II introduces and describes the hydroplate theory - a new theory developed after more than 30 years of study by Dr. Walt Brown, a former evolutionist. This theory explains a catastrophic event in earth’s history and answers a host of previously unexplained questions raised by physical observations. For decades, evolutionists complained that creationists only criticized evolution and did not have sound scientific theories of their own. The hydroplate theory ends that complaint and explains, with overwhelming evidence, earth’s defining geological event - a worldwide flood.
If there was a global flood, where did all the water come from? Where did it go?
How did the Grand Canyon form?
How did submarine canyons, mountains, and oceanic trenches form?
What suddenly froze and buried mammoths in Siberia and Alaska? How could they live at polar latitudes?
How did rock strata and fossils form?
How did comets, asteroids, and meteoroids form?
Thirty frequently asked questions from those attending seminars by Dr. Brown fill a fascinating Part III, including:
Have physical traces of Adam and Eve been detected within us?
How can the study of creation be scientific?
Is Archaeopteryx a fraud?
How accurate is radiocarbon dating?
What about the dinosaurs?
Because galaxies are billions of light-years away, isn’t the universe billions of years old?
Is there life in outer space?

"You can be incredibly smart and yet know nothing about particular areas of study, there's simply too much to know to 'know it all'..."

Did Dr. Brown suggest that he "knew it all"? He merely gives evidence for creation and the flood. He is not the only scientist to believe the biblical account.

"It takes a good deal of study to become knowledgeable on a new study. Certainly it can be done but I've seen zero evidence of this from creation 'scientists'."

Because you've seen zero evidence does that mean there is zero evidence? Do you automatically dismiss the work of secular scientists? Must one be godless to understand the data? This is what we call a bias.

"It only takes a cursory glance at Dr. Brown's book (which I've looked at before) to be able to tell he doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done anything more than an extremely cursory glance at the state of natural science."

You would want to take another look to be correct.

"When I was very young I was reading creation science books. When I went to college and on into graduate school it became painfully obvious to me the authors knew very little about their subject matter. I wasn't willing to accept evolution in full at that point, but 'creation science' was clearly wrong."

Your evidence?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Tell us what your theory..."

I think that many animals (including dinosaurs) died in worldwide flood just as the Bible says.

See:

What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "By the way, that story is from The Sun..."

I noticed that too. Not exactly The Financial Times or The Independent.

Response to comment [from an athiest]: "And how does a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering legitimize Brown's opinion on questions relevant to biology?"

Dr. Brown's bio says, "...Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood."

There are plenty of creation scientists:

■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

■Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

■John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

■George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

■D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

■Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions...Full text: Do Real Scientists Believe in Creation?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "...Evolution is well supported by the evidence, this is not bias, it is simply the world as we observe it."

We observe the same world yet come up with different conclusions. Christians come from an informed perspective.

Today we were able to peer into a single molecule more closely than ever before. To believe that design does not have a designer is foolishness. "Never been seen before. It remains one of the incomprehensible, paradoxical mysteries of life that the universe is both infinitely large and infinitely small [dennisprager.com]": The delicate inner structure of a pentacene molecule has been imaged with an atomic force microscope. See: molecule.

"I have yet to see any positive evidence for young earth creationism, if there were any discovered, I suspect it would make front page news."

You really think it would make front page news?

"I read the Genesis flood around the age of 12, it seemed to make sense at the time until I began to run into real evidence and real science. You do not need to fear evidence, you do not need to hang your faith on Christian folk-science, it will fail you..."

It has not failed yet--nor will it. We have overwhelming evidence for young earth creation. You should examine the evidence without bias.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "Theory, in science, is a good thing - and evolution is amongst the most powerful. But I don't expect you to know what one is and how one works..."

A theory is a guess. I thought scientists never stopped asking questions.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "That's how science works."

Science works like this:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Is creation repeatable? This is why secular scientists use the word "theory".

Response to comment [from other]: "[A] transitional between a bird and a non-avian dinosaurs would have a number of traits that dinosaurs have (and only dinosaurs) and a number of traits that are only found in birds..."

"A Quick Summary

We have covered a lot of material about Darwinism in this chapter. Let me briefly summarize and then show why this is so important in our discussion about racism.

Natural selection can only operate on the information that exists in the gene pool.
Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation within a kind. Science has never observed a change from one kind to another kind.
Over time, mutations and natural selection lead to a loss of genetic information. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner (who was a fellow at Johns Hopkins University) stated: “All mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it . . . not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.”⁵
There are no natural mechanisms by which new information can be added into the gene pool. For a reptile to change into a bird, vast amounts of new information would have to be introduced to the gene pool (for example, information on how to make feathers).
Natural selection and mutations lead to physical diversity, not increased genetic information. Dr. Gary Parker, in chapter 2 of the book Creation: Facts of Life, stated it this way:

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The longterm result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

The changes observed with both natural selection and mutations are the opposite of those needed for evolution to work. Scientists know this is true, but sadly it is not widely published nor is it usually explained to students in schools or colleges.

Conclusion

Darwin was correct about natural selection. We do observe small changes in living things. However, now that we understand more about genetics and biochemistry, we know that the process of natural selection and mutation can never form new kinds of animals and plants. They can only cause more diversity and varieties within the same kind. Dogs always reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, elephants reproduce elephants, apes reproduce apes . . . and humans have always reproduced humans. Period.

This revelation destroys the possibility of Darwinian evolution and uproots the weeds of racism. A proper interpretation of the evidence makes it clear that humanity (and all living communities) thrive on diversity and unity but are weakened by forced uniformity. When we unnaturally select out certain traits as being more valuable than others, we ignore the necessity for diversity within our culture, gene pool, society, and world. Think about it. We are all of one kind (one biological race), just as the Bible says, no matter the shade of our skin, the length of our bones or the contours of our face. We always have been and always will be brothers and sisters with a common heritage and ancestry. In a following chapter we will explain, using the basic genetic principles outlined in this chapter, how different people groups exist within the one race of humans—thus showing conclusively there are no different biological human races, just different groups within the one race.

Did you know that Darwin studied theology, Stalin studied for the priesthood, and Hitler was a member of the Church until the day he died? Even Mao lived in China during a period of great Western missionary activity. Yet tragically, all these men rejected truth—they rejected Scripture—and that led to the greatest ethnic cleansing policies in all of history. They attempted to unnaturally select certain arbitrary characteristics that they found desirable and tried to eliminate those who appeared to be different. They used their own criteria to sift out what they thought was valuable and invaluable in the human gene pool . . . and in the process millions and millions died.

How different things might have been had these men simply believed the only source for all truth and that our common origin is from a wise and powerful Creator. They would have adopted a different, biblical philosophy for living together as one kind—just as we can, when we embrace the scientific and biblical reality that we are all “one blood...” Full text: Darwin's Plantation Chapter 3: The True Origin of the Species

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Care to provide a biological definition of this term? Or are you intentionally keeping it vague so it can be redefined as necessary for your apoligetics to remain culturally relevant?"

I used the word "kinds" intentionally as it is a biblical word. Ken Ham explains this concept using his own dog, Mintie as an example:

"Mintie is a bichon frise, a variety of dog that was bred over time like all the other domestic varieties of dogs (probably in France or Germany, up to 700 or more years ago).² We could say that God created the original dogs and bichons and poodles were developed by man from that original—but only using the information God put there in the first place. So in a sense one could say God made bichons and poodles—but only in the sense that God created all the original perfect information for these breeds of dogs which existed in the Garden of Eden. But let’s be honest, this cute little fuzzy thing that rules my home is no genetic improvement—it’s a mutant suffering from the effects of the Fall and sin. Our dog has to have her hair cut each month (because of a mutation affecting the shedding of hair) and is susceptible to bladder stones (it had to have a very expensive operation). Mintie now lives on pricey prescription food and needs estrogen tablets regularly. I’m thinking about health insurance for the dog! The list of physical problems due to mutations is extensive in domestic breeds. See the following for some problems in poodles, for instance.

Miniature poodle problems: congenital (and acquired defects)

Achondroplasia (bone cartilage problem producing abnormal short limbs)
Adult onset GH deficiency
Amaurotic idiocy
Atopic dermatitis
Atypical pannus
Behavior abnormalities
Cancer
Cerebrospinal demyelination
Congenital deafness
Cryptorchidism
Cushing’s disease
Cystinuria (Heart valve incompetence)
Distichiasis (two rows of eyelashes)
Ear infections
Ectodermal defects (skin problems)
Ectopic ureters
Entropion (eyelid turning inward)
Epilepsy
Epiphora (excessive tearing)
Epiphyseal dysplasia (hindleg joints of puppies sag)
Glaucoma
Hairlessness
Hemeralopia (day blindness)
Hemophilia A, Factor VIII deficiency (prolonged bleeding, hemorrhagic episodes)
Hypospadia
Hypothyroidism
Intervertebral disc degeneration (spine problem)
Juvenile cataracts
Lacrimal duct atresia
Legg-Perthes disease
Lens-induced uveitis
Microphthalmia
Missing teeth
Narcolepsy
Nonspherocytic hemolytic anemia
Optic nerve hypoplasia
Osteogenesis imperfecta
Patellar luxation
Patent ductus arteriosus (aorta and pulmonary artery problem)
Persistent penile frenulum
Progressive retinal atrophy (sluggish retinas, leads to blindness)
Progressive rod-cone degeneration
Pseudohermaphroditism
Pyruvate kinase deficiency
Renal dysplasia
Retinal atrophy
Retinal detachment
Robertsonian translocation
Trichiasis
Von Willebrand’s disease (prolonged bleeding, reduced platelet adhesiveness)

Bichons and poodles (like all domestic varieties) are the result of a downward process. They have not just developed from dog genes, but from cursed copies of dog genes! Sorry about that—but it is true that dogs like Mintie are the result of the Curse! Each time I arrive home and our pet bichon races to the door to meet me, I am reminded of my sin—that I, in Adam, sinned and ushered in the Fall. (Now my wife may think I’m nuts, but I’m trying to illustrate an important point here.) After God pronounced every created thing as “very good,” Adam sinned, resulting in the whole of creation being cursed. Everything began to run down, no longer upheld perfectly by the sustaining power of an infinite Creator. When we unnaturally select out certain traits and create “pure breeds,” we aren’t creating anything new. We are actually filtering out diversity that God created in the original kind and passing on mutations that are detrimental. When one breeds poodles with poodles (why people do this is hard to come to grips with), only poodles will be produced, sadly! In a sense, a poodle is near the end of the line for a dog—there is not enough variety left for anything different to develop. (At least nothing of value, in my opinion!) If one were to start with wolves and breed generations of dogs, breeding the right combinations together with all the same sorts of mutations occurring all over again in the right sequence, then one could theoretically breed a dog with poodle characteristics. But one could never breed a wolf from a poodle, because the necessary information for wolves has been corrupted or deleted..." Full text: Darwin's Plantation Chapter 3: The True Origin of the Species

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Christians that deny the age of the earth and the evidence for evolution are not informed. They've blinded themselves to the truth because of a misunderstanding of scripture. I find it very sad."

"...Darwin was correct about natural selection. We do observe small changes in living things. However, now that we understand more about genetics and biochemistry, we know that the process of natural selection and mutation can never form new kinds of animals and plants. They can only cause more diversity and varieties within the same kind. Dogs always reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, elephants reproduce elephants, apes reproduce apes . . . and humans have always reproduced humans. Period." Full text: Darwin's Plantation Chapter 3: The True Origin of the Species

Response to comment [from other]: "One of the key problems with baraminology is that it is actually not nearly as effective as standard phylogeny at making sense of what we see around us..."

"Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”)...." Full text: Creation: Facts of Life, Chapter 2: Darwin and Biologic Change

"What does it mean when God created the animals to reproduce “after their kind” in Genesis 1? Were these original animals the same as animals in our world today?..." Answers in Genesis.

See:

An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes: Order—Squamata, Suborder Serpentes

Baraminology Study Group - a collection of papers and updates on baraminological studies

Elephant Kind from Frozen in Time

Response to comment [from other]: "So we agree that there are certain principles that underlie the world that allow self-organization? Or are you saying that an intelligent designer crafts each individual snowflake?"

God created a weather system. Every snowflake and sun flare declares his glory. Snow is beyond man's comprehension (Job 38:22).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "We address your comments directly and precisely and you seem to post with the awareness of a sea slug."

Just getting rid of the slimy trail (Ps 58:8).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Are you saying that humans cannot understand how water vapor freezes in the atmosphere to produce snow?"

Men do not fully appreciate snow (e.g. Napoleon).

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Indeed. Many millions of human beings observe the very same world I do and claim to see all manner of supernatural/paranormal/spiritual phenomena going on: witches casting spells, angels protecting people, demons harming people, etc., etc., etc.

You may be familiar with Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher of some note, who puts forward the idea that it could be a mistake to dismiss out of hand supernatural causes for phenomena:

'...if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused – as most of the world's people believe – you won't be able to reach that truth scientifically. Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.'"

Exactly. However, God gave laws regarding witchcraft (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 19:31). This is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:20).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Men do not fully appreciate snow] "You are avoiding direct answers to my questions. That usually signifies that a person is being deceitful."

That's not it (Pr 26:5).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "Did you really think that was an answer? People do not fully appreciate mathematics...but that doesn't mean it can't be understood. Some do not fully appreciate what a non-sequitur is (e.g. you), but that doesn't mean others can't understand it."

Some cannot hear music because the radio is not turned on. I would suggest W.O.R.D. (A. Rogers).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "[E]ven if Napoleon didn't fully appreciate snow doesn't mean humans cannot understand how water vapor freezes in the atmosphere to produce snow...Get it yet?"

Men can know a thing or two about snow. God knows more (Job 38:22). Men can know a thing or two about light. God knows more (Job 38:19,20,24).

"And your point is?"

God knows more (Isa 55:9).

Response to comment: "Hawking...Creationist websites are the sewers of the internet."

Stephen Hawking says that all is irrelevant--so his opinion must be irrelevant (B. Enyart).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: [Science and Creation] "It doesn't prove their case time and time again, because if it did, their explanations would be accepted science."

No so (Ex 23:2).

"Darwin said that the state of the fossil record, being so sparse at his time, was a problem... 150 years ago. Besides, we generally do not put a whole lot of stock in what Darwin said.."

People do put a whole lot of stock in what Darwin said, unfortunately. This is why children shoot up their schools.

See:

Columbine Father Attacking Evolution, Abortion

Darwin had a problem with the fossil record because the transitional fossils had not been found. With the passage of time, he had hoped that they would be found. 150 years later scientists are still looking-- still clinging to the hope that God did not create this world (Ge 1:1) and that they are not responsible to their creator, which enables them to live wickedly.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Darwin claimed that the fossil record (future finds) would shed better light on his ideas, which it has done."

It has shed light on his ideas as being false. Venture a guess what the transitional animal might be for the mantis shrimp. There is no other creature like it in the world. "[It] possesses an amazing function to obtain food, it creates a cavity bubble underwater which collapses with such force that it produces a cracking sound of about 200 decibels, a tiny flash of light, and enough shock to stun or even kill its prey such as worms and goby fish. It is the only creature in the world with such a 'weapon' to kill its pray (kgov.com, Real Science Friday)."

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "The first proponent of a theory is not the strongest or most accurate or most important by default. It is the latest picture, based on the latest evidence, that is."

Truth does not change with the passage of time (Ge 1:1).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "Ken Ham is obliged to say those things, make those assertions, wave his hands in the air and shout those things - he is committed that, no matter how strong the evidence against it, his version of events is correct, a priori, and will never be wrong. Science is dependent on evidence, though, and to be a successful scientist you cannot conclude you were right and then search for the evidence.

Think of a court-room. A lawyer is a person who will use any information possible to put towards a position that he feels obliged to defend - and thus any evidence that supports his claim that comes in he shall make much of, and any evidence that refutes his claim, he will play down - doing each with no regard for the actual direction in which the evidence is pointing. Then there is the fair judge - who listens to the evidence, and concludes what is most likely based upon it, allowing the strongest one to win.

Lawyers are not permitted reign in science - as under evidence, no matter how strongly you believe a thing, if it is falsified by the evidence, it must be overturned. Science is a system in which lawyers die, and fair judges survive. It is set up to remove bias."

Christians are called witnesses not lawyers. God does not need defending. A Christian speaks of what he has seen (1 Jn 1:1). It just so happens that we have the truth on our side (Ge 1:1).

[Young Earth Creation] "It's an overarching explanation of separate natural phenomena..."

Some claim that we cannot prove things which are not measured by the five senses. Adrienne Rogers told the story of a professor who challenged his class to prove that God did not exist. He asked the class, "Can anyone see God?" No one raised their hand. "Can anyone hear God?"..."Feel God?"..."Taste God?"..."Smell God?" No hands went up. The professor said that there was no God.

A smart boy stood up and asked the class, "Can anyone see the professor's brain?" No one raised their hand. "Can anyone hear his brain?"..."Feel it?"..."Taste it?"..."Smell it?" No hands went up. He said the professor had no brain.

See:

How Does Creationism vs. Evolution Impact How a Person Views the World?

Response to comment [from other]: [Mutation]

"...[E]volution demands an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information, and mutation-selection, no matter how long you wait, cannot provide it. But, both mutation and selection are very real, observable processes going on around us every day. Evolution, no, but mutation-selection, yes!..." Full text: Mutation-Selection in Biblical Perspective.

Response to comment [from other]: "Ah yes, before Darwin there was no violence in the world. No slavery. No ethnic hatred (well except perhaps for the Crusades but they were justified)..."

Are you suggesting that men are making the world better? God is giving man the time to see his own heart (Jer 17:9).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "You're blowing steam about the truth of an idea, and so trying to discredit its veracity by implicating it in the belief systems of people who did terrible things."

The theory is bad and people do terrible things because of it (e.g. racism, school shootings, etc.).

"Real science is not antithetical to religion."

Real science is not antithetical to Christianity, agreed.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "...the fallacy of all fallacies--if you don't know everything, you know nothing. We expected to see an increase in the number of transitional fossils found..."

Yet we do not find them. Will you wait another 150 years?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Just because there is no extant species like another species does not mean that that species did not evolve from a common ancestor. Again your logic is faulty. There are a lot of unique species alive today. This does not negate the idea of common ancestry."

Consider dugongs:

"...Despite the fact they are marine mammals and have some resemblance to dolphins and whales, dugongs are classified separately from their fellow marine mammals. Incredibly, dugongs are grouped in the same suborder as elephants (Subungulata), largely because they have some similarities in their teeth and in the position of their mammary glands (between the front flippers/legs).9

Of course humans have mammary glands in a similar position—but evolutionists do not propose a common ancestor with dugongs to explain that similarity!

Furthermore, humans have a similar heart artery arrangement (‘aortic arch’) to dugongs, which is different from elephants.10 This shows that the argument from similarity for evolution (common ancestors) is a very selective one—applied where it seems to work, otherwise ignored. Large-scale similarities are due to a common Creator, not common ancestry.

In classifying dugongs with elephants, evolutionists assume that elephants evolved from water creatures. In other words the evolutionary path would be:

sea creature → land mammal → back to the sea (supposed ancestor of elephants and dugongs) → back to the land (elephants).11

But there is no fossil evidence that dugongs and manatees are related to any creature that now—or ever—walked on land.

Furthermore, the dugong’s body and breathing method are ideal for a marine mammal, and their teeth, horny pads for crushing food, tough upper lip and bristly snout are perfectly designed for their underwater vegetarian diet. It is therefore most likely that dugongs, Steller’s sea cows and manatees all descended from a dugong-manatee kind created by God on Day 5 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–23)." Full text: Dugongs: ‘Sirens’ of the Sea.

Response to comment [from other]: [Mantis shrimp] "So what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that a grabbing claw couldn't evolve via natural selection to become an efficient club?"

There is nothing else like it in the animal kingdom. But nice try.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Evolution leads to racism, school shootings, etc.] "Different ideas impact different people differently. That does not mean that we should lie about the objective reality around us."

Believing lies is not only impractical, it is wicked:

Ex. 23:1; Lev. 6:2–7; Lev. 19:11, 12, 16 Ex. 20:16. Job 13:4; Job 21:34; Job 27:4; Job 31:5, 6, 33; Job 36:4; Psa. 5:6, 9; Psa. 10:7; Psa. 12:2, 3; Psa. 28:3; Psa. 31:18; Psa. 34:13 1 Pet. 3:10. Psa. 36:3; Psa. 50:19, 20; Psa. 52:2–5; Psa. 55:21, 23; Psa. 58:3; Psa. 59:12; Psa. 62:4; Psa. 63:11; Psa. 101:5, 7; Psa. 109:2; Psa. 116:11; Psa. 119:29,69,163Psa. 120:2–4; Psa. 144:8, 11; Prov. 2:12–15; Prov. 3:3; Prov. 6:12, 13, 16–19; Prov. 10:9, 10, 18, 31; Prov. 11:9; Prov. 12:17, 19, 20, 22; Prov. 13:5; Prov. 14:5, 8, 25; Prov. 17:4, 7; Prov. 19:5 [v. 9.] Prov. 19:22, 28; Prov. 20:17; Prov. 21:6; Prov. 26:18, 19, 24–26, 28; Prov. 27:14; Eccl. 5:6; Isa. 28:15; Isa. 32:7; Isa. 57:11; Isa. 59:3, 4, 12, 13; Isa. 63:8; Jer. 7:8, 28; Jer. 9:3, 5, 6, 8; Jer. 12:6; Jer. 50:36; Ezek. 22:9; Hos. 4:1, 2; Obad. 7; Mic. 6:12; Nah. 3:1; Zeph. 3:13; Matt. 25:44–46; John 8:44, 45; Eph. 4:25, 29; Col. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10; 1 Tim. 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:16; Rev. 21:8, 27; Rev. 22:15

Tell the truth (Ge 1:1).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [God knows more than man (Isa 55:9)] "I agree. That is why I try to learn about what He has supplied..."

He has supplied an account of the origins of the universe through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"What exactly does this have to do with you?"

I've read it.

"Are you speaking for God?"

I am giving out the word of God.

"Do you know all that God knows?"

No.

Response to comment: "People do bad things for a lot of reasons. If there were no guns, then people could not shoot each other."

Guns fire when people pull the trigger.

"Does that mean we should get rid of guns?"

No, people should stop murdering.

[Real science is not antithetical to Christianity] "It is only antithetical to your specific brand of Christianity. That should tell you something."

There are not versions of truth. There is one truth (Jn 14:6). Everything else is a lie.

It does tell me something--you're wrong. If you would like to be right, believe God (Ge 1:1).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Serpentdove do you think the many Christians that accept evolution are promoting murder and racism?"

No. Christians disagree on the origin of the universe and the age of the earth. But Darwin's theory inevitability leads to racism and violence:

"Did you know that Darwin studied theology, Stalin studied for the priesthood, and Hitler was a member of the Church until the day he died? Even Mao lived in China during a period of great Western missionary activity. Yet tragically, all these men rejected truth—they rejected Scripture—and that led to the greatest ethnic cleansing policies in all of history. They attempted to unnaturally select certain arbitrary characteristics that they found desirable and tried to eliminate those who appeared to be different. They used their own criteria to sift out what they thought was valuable and invaluable in the human gene pool . . . and in the process millions and millions died.

"I believe God created the heavens and the earth through the Big bang, stellar evolution, planetary evolution and biological evolution...Genesis is ambiguous about how God created."

I believe in a big bang too-- but it was God's voice (Ps 33:6, Heb 11:3).

See:

Creation/Evolution: Does It Matter What We Believe?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Genesis was not meant to be a scientific text of natural history."

The book of Genesis can be believed from the very first verse. No scientist has proven otherwise.

"...[Y]our distorted version of the word."

We can take the creation account literally. Dr. Warwick Glover responded to Ken Ham when he asked a similar questions this way:

"Dr. Warwick Glover [W.G.]: I come from a family that were perhaps Christian ‘fellow travellers’—trying to maintain a Christian ethic but not perhaps understanding why they did. I had tended towards Christianity but did have trouble with this. I had been brainwashed into believing evolution but did find it difficult to understand when I studied all the miraculous design in something like the human body. It was hard correlating my beliefs in Christianity and Darwinian evolution theory. I suppose I would say that I thought I believed in evolution, but I could never really accept it because I couldn't actually see a mechanism, and thought all the odds were so far-fetched. I was searching for a way to continue Christianity without having to compromise my science. I went through a period of a few years of reading books which were written by evolutionists but who tended to ‘can’ the theory. Then I saw an advertisement for one of the Creation Science Foundation lecture tours. You were one of the speakers Ken. I must say that I came away from that meeting and felt a fool. You said so many things which I knew from my medical training were true, but I suddenly realized that I had been brainwashed to think otherwise. From that moment—I didn’t have an ‘on the road to Damascus’ conversion, but very quickly I think—I became a much more devout Christian. I gave my life to the Lord and I’ve really devoured anything on creation science ever since. I have never found any problems in correlating Christianity with true scientific beliefs and I do spend a lot of my time discussing this with colleagues. I of course have a great opportunity to do this with patients and I see this as part of my vocation; to alert people to the true meaning of life and the true meaning of science, and what the scientific evidence represents..." Full text: A surgeon looks at creation: Interview with Dr. Warwick Glover, M.B. B.S., FRACS, FRCSED

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-21

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-33

Response to comment [from other]: "[A]re you telling me that you aren't reading the Bible literally after all, in spite of all your bloviating that the Bible ought to be read literally?"

Do you believe all of the scripture to be taken literally? None of scripture is to be taken literally?

Pagans believe God is light (1 Jn 1:5) and worship light. But they do not worship fire. God is also a consuming fire (Heb 12:29).

Roman Catholics believe God is contained in the Eucharist. They worship bread (Jn 6:48). But God is also a branch (Jer. 23:5), a stone (Eph. 2:20) and a vine (John 15:1). They don't worship those things. Where is the consistency?

Guess what you are going to need to be able to discern when to take the Bible literally and when not to?

Response to comment [from other]: "If you call yourself a Biblical literalist, then you read scripture literally. Period..."

It doesn't work that way.

See:

Hierarchy of 16 Hermeneutics

"We will not get any truth worth the word from dishonest people like you."

Guess who you are going to need to be able to discern when to take the Bible literally and when not to?

Response to comment [from other]: "If everybody came to exactly the same conclusion that you did, you might have a point."

I could have a point if no one came to the same conclusion (Ex 23:2).

See:

Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?

"Truth and honesty aren't the same thing, of course. But if Truth is the destination, honesty is either the road one travels on, or the vehicle he travels in, to get there."

I hope your day of visitation goes well (1 Pet. 2:12). There is one faithful and true (Re 19:11, Jn 14:6).

Your motto/slogan is a quote from Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." The Bible teaches that there is trouble with the world and it isn't intelligence.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "What do you think would happen if you gave the Bible to a child who had not learned to read yet?"

Mt 18:4.

"The first paragraph says that we should not listen to sinful people over scripture. If snakebird actually believed that were the case, why is he/she even trying to teach us how to interpret scripture?"

Only the Holy Spirit can take the things of scripture and make them real to an individual (J. Vernon McGee).

Response to comment [from other]: "[Y]ou'd have the thorny issue of why God would give 'perfect' understanding to so few people, when it is declared that God is trying to save many. So, you 'could' have a point -- but you don't....God can do anything, by definition. But what's the source of the story? The Bible? Where did the Bible get the story? From God? Who said that? The Bible? Your source for this information is highly questionable -- but only to those who think about it."

Believing God from the first verse of scripture (Ge 1:1) is pointless? Genesis is a simple account of origins that a child could understand. Kids come to faith easily. It takes getting older to dismiss God.

"If intelligence (God) designed the world, he would have done a much better job of it -- unless, of course, you don't have a very high opinion of God. From where I sit, you give God far too little credit to think he's dumb enough to create a world like this one. At least the God that makes sense to me has some brains."

The Bible teaches that sin--not intelligence, is the problem with the world. God did do a good job at creation. He said "It was very good" (Ge 1:31). Now, it is not good--that is due to sin in the world.

"Who gets to decide whether or not a given revelation is coming from the 'holy spirit'...or his own imagination? You?"

God testifies to our spirit (Ro 8:16). A truly born again believer will have a changed life. When the holy spirit indwells a person, he leads him into all truth (Jn 16:13). He points to Jesus, who is the Word of God (Jn 1:1). The Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word of God.

"And by citing some human's comment about the 'holy spirit', the information no longer has the authority of biblical scripture which, when it comes to God, is the only authoritative writing worth paying attention to. Because once you start listening to humans, you run the risk of corrupting God's word, and getting all sorts of false impressions about the nature of God."

Of course. Don't trust me or anyone else. Test all things against scripture (1 Thes 5:21).

"Or haven't you noticed that humans have a virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion -- and that you're just as human as anyone else is?"

No argument here. Scripture is our final authority.

[Sin is the problem with the world] "No, this isn't true...Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." ...and God's own word proves it."

No. God allows sin in the world but he is not responsible for it.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things [Isa. 45:7].

"..."And create evil”—the word evil does not mean wickedness in this instance, but rather “sorrow, difficulties, or tragedies”—those things which are the fruit of evil, the fruit of sin. This is the Old Testament way of saying, “The wages of sin is death …” (Rom. 6:23). If you indulge in sin, there will be a payday for it!

By the way, let me introduce something else at this point, since we are living in a day when it is said that good and evil are relative terms, that whatever you think is good, is good. The argument is put forth: The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” (Exod 20:13, 15), But what is the Bible? Who should obey it? Or why should we listen to the God of the Bible?

The Lord has another very cogent argument. God says that if you indulge in sin, you will find that sin has its payday. It pays a full wage, by the way. This is what God is saying through Isaiah. God has so created the universe that when you break over the bounds that He has set, you don’t need a judge, a hangman’s noose, or an electric chair; God will take care of it.

He says, therefore, that He is the One who creates light and darkness. He is answering Zoroastrianism which worshiped the god of light. God says, “I want you to know that light is no god; I created it.”

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 3:296

rsv Revised Standard Version

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (594). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Response to comment [from] a wiccan: "Serpent thinks he understands Witch Craft!"

As Dr. J. Vernon McGee used to say, "Witches have been here for a long time. Now, they just say it. They would use amulets and pray for people to get well, as if there was any merit with the Lord. They are false prophets."

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "That people practiced divination and other such things is no indication that such things actually worked. You understand that distinction, don't you

Yes, I understand the distinction. People can sure spend a lifetime spinning their wheels and doing nothing. I know of a big wheel spinning and working--and coming right on schedule.

And the sound of the cherubim’s wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.

And it came to pass, that when he had commanded the man clothed with linen, saying, Take fire from between the wheels, from between the cherubims; then he went in, and stood beside the wheels.

And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took it, and went out.

And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man’s hand under their wings [Ezek. 10:5–8].

"[T]]his “hand” denotes the activity of God in performing certain things. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [actually, fingerwork]” (Ps. 19:1). The universe is the fingerwork of God, but God’s work in His redemption of man was greater than that in creation. Isaiah said, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isa. 53:1, italics mine). He used His bared arm. The only way that I can understand the work of God is to use terms with which I am acquainted. I use my fingers to do certain things, my hands to do other tasks, and my arms to do even heavier tasks. The greatest thing God has done is to perform the wonderful redemptive love act at the cross of Christ—that was His bared arm; but when God created the universe He just used His fingers, or, as John Wesley put it: “God created the universe and didn’t even half try.” Ezekiel says here that the hand of God is moving in judgment."

McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (3:461-462). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Loch Ness Monster Existence 'Plausible' After Incredible Discovery