The Jackhammer in Your Backyard by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2315

The Jackhammer in Your Backyard

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

If evolution were true, there would be no woodpeckers. Yet there they are, brightly colored birds, daily chipping away at bark on our backyard trees (“Downy Woodpecker,” 2003; “Pileated Woodpecker...,” 1981). Though evolutionists suggest that the woodpecker’s uncommon characteristics are merely adaptations resulting from natural selection (Fergus, n.d.; Ryan, 2003), they cannot satisfactorily explain why these small birds have the ability to drive their beaks powerfully into the side of a tree, and survive to do it again less than a second later.

“Woodpecker” is the common name for just over 200 species (45 in America, 13 in Canada) of animals that are unique among fowl because they frequently cling to, and excavate, tree trunks (see “Woodpecker,” n.d.; “Downy Woodpecker,” 1999; Fergus, n.d.). They “drill” into trees for three distinct purposes: (1) to find food; (2) to attract potential mates; and (3) to build nests (Eckhardt, 2001). The woodpecker’s suspension system allows it to absorb the force of lightning-fast, repetitive strokes on tree trunks. In fact, the bird can peck bark an estimated 20-25 times per second, and strike an estimated 8,000-12,000 times in a day (“Woodpeckers,” 2009; “How Many...?,” 2007).

No other bird can do this. If the kind of force withstood by woodpeckers on a daily basis were applied to the cranium of any other bird, its brain would quickly turn to mush (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002). Moreover, if a human once smacked his head against a tree as hard as woodpeckers do repeatedly, he would suffer serious brain damage, even if he lived through the impact (“Knock on Wood,” 2004).

How do woodpeckers withstand such pressure? What prevents the force applied by the woodpeckers’ mighty neck muscles, and the sudden, swift impact, from literally beating the birds’ brains out? The answer is that their skulls are reinforced with bone, to keep their heads from shattering. David Juhasz wrote:

The forces involved in the woodpecker’s hammering away at trees are incredible, for the suddenness with which the head is brought to a halt during each peck results in a stress equivalent to 1,000 times the force of gravity. This is more than 250 times the force to which an astronaut is subjected in a rocket during liftoff.... In most birds, the bones of the beak are joined to the bones of the cranium—the part of the skull that surrounds the brain. But in the woodpecker the cranium and beak are separated by a sponge-like tissue that takes the shock each time the bird strikes its beak against a tree. The woodpecker’s shock-absorber is so good that scientists say it is far better than any that humans have invented (2001, emp. added).

Consider how the woodpecker takes his position on the tree. Chuck Fergus described this process:

To grip trees, a woodpecker has short, muscular legs and sharply clawed feet. On most species, two toes point forward and two backward. This opposed, “yoke-toed” arrangement lets a woodpecker climb with ease. Stiff, pointed tail feathers catch on the rough bark to brace the hammering body. During molt, the two middle tail feathers (the strongest ones) do not fall out until the other 10 have been replaced and can support the bird’s weight (n.d.).

Most birds have three toes in the front of the foot and one in the back, but the woodpecker’s X-shaped (zygodactyl) feet are perfect for climbing, allowing the woodpecker to move in any direction on a tree trunk (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002; Bassett, n.d.; “The Malayan Woodpecker,” 2002 ). In addition to the amazingly well-designed X-shaped feet, the woodpecker needs its stiff—yet elastic—tail feathers to press against the tree in order to support its weight while it drills the trunk (“Woodpecker,” n.d.).

Next, consider the woodpecker’s tongue. Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating. The ants’ defense mechanism is no problem either, because the tongue comes complete with a system that negates ant poison (see Yahya, 2004). Juhasz commented:

How does the woodpecker know it has caught the insects? The Creator has given it a tongue with a hard spearhead with bristles pointing rearward, which is attached by tiny fibres of the protein collagen. As the tongue probes a tunnel, the impact of the spearhead on any object jams the head back along the shaft. Nerve endings are precisely located in the fluid-filled spaces between the collagen fibres. They provide the brain with information about the type of material contacted; thus, the woodpecker knows whether it has secured an insect or hit the hard wood of a tree. Once the insects stick to its tongue, the woodpecker pulls them from the tree, then pulls in its long tongue and scrapes the insects off into its mouth (2001).

Consider the beak itself. Like a chisel, it is capable of penetrating even the hardest of wood, and, unlike manmade saws, its point never needs sharpening.

It is argued, however, that because some woodpeckers are different from others (some find their prey on the ground instead of in trees, for example), they all must have evolved from a common ancestor, and that some woodpeckers are merely at different stages of evolution. For example, Juan Garelli wrote concerning the Galapagos:

There are, on the different islands of that archipelago, 14 different species of finch. The 14 species fill many of the roles we should expect—on another continent—to be played by other, unrelated birds. One of them, for instance, is a woodpecker finch. It has evolved a long woodpecker-beak but not a long tongue; it therefore makes use of a twig, held in its beak, to extract insects from bark.

If all the 14 species had been created separately, why are they all finches? If a woodpecker would serve as a woodpecker in the rest of the world, why should it be a finch that acts as a woodpecker on the Galapagos? But the facts make sense if the species all evolved from a common ancestor. If a single finch colonized the Galapagos and then speciated into the present 14 forms, we should expect them all to be finches: they all descended from a finch. The fact that they are finches is known from the homologies that define a finch. If they had been created separately, we should not expect them to share all the finch-homologies. The woodpecker would be the same woodpecker as anywhere else in the world; it would not have finch-defining traits. The Galapagos finches, therefore, provide evidence of evolution (n.d.).

Ryan adds:

The genetic changes necessary for such a modification are quite minor. No new structures are required, merely an extended period of growth to lengthen an existing structure. It is likely that in ancestral woodpecker species which began to seek grubs deeper in trees, those woodpeckers with mutations for increased hyoid horn growth had a fitness advantage, as they could extend their tongue farther to reach prey. Some woodpeckers have no need for long tongues, and thus genes which shortened the hyoid horns were selected for. The sapsucker, for example, drills tiny holes in trees and then uses its short tongue to eat the oozing sap on the tree’s surface (and insects which stick to it) [2003, parenthetical item in orig.].

Garelli and Ryan wrote about microevolution (small-scale changes that result in minor biological variations, but not new kinds of animals), which is responsible for much of the diversity among animals (see Butt, 2005). But Garelli and Ryan did not document macroevolution, which is necessary for Darwinian evolution to be true. Some species of woodpeckers have changed over time, but they all remain woodpeckers. Woodpeckers do not “evolve” into other kinds of animals. To better comprehend this distinction, consider some questions to which evolutionists cannot provide adequate answers:

• Even though woodpeckers possess powerful mechanisms for drilling, they prefer trees that have visible signs of internal decay (“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities...,” n.d.). At what point did naturalistic evolution “grant” the woodpecker capability to “shop around” for the most suitable tree for excavation?

• Inherent in the suggestion that the woodpecker is the result of random mutations that took place over millions of years, is that there was a time when the bird possessed some, but not all, of its capabilities. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that mutations are positive and that, given enough time, evolution could produce entirely new biological structures (concessions we do not grant), then what need motivated a woodpecker to “mutate” or “evolve” new traits that it did not possess? Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?

• Could a woodpecker decide to evolve a new trait in the first place? If so, what motivated it to make such a decision? Why does the woodpecker not make such decisions now?

• If a woodpecker, of a species that eats insects from trees, had a tongue that had not yet evolved, but needed to access food deep inside a tree trunk, would the bird have survived for long? If it had not yet “discovered” that it needed a highly specialized tongue to pull the ants into its mouth (and to keep the ants from hurting him), what would it have done, since it surely did not have enough time to “evolve” a totally different, entirely unique, specialized tongue before it died?

• If a woodpecker ran out of food on the ground, why would its appetite for ants have been so strong that it required the bird to overlook the danger of eating ants, and motivated it to evolve a special tongue for ingesting them? Would it not have preferred only less
  dangerous insects?

• What about the beak? If a woodpecker’s beak were not sharp and sturdy, would not the fir

  

  st woodpecker have been doomed to death or permanent injury on the first attempt to hammer a hardwood tree?

• How did the first full-fledged woodpecker know that food (and a suitable location for nesting) was available inside trees, when the woodpecker’s ancestors had
  not a clue?

• How did the woodpecker learn that effective communication can be performed by hammering its 

  beak on bark?

• What animal gave birth to the first woodpecker?

• How did the immediate descendant of the first full-fledged woodpecker know that it also shoul

  d look for food in trees?

Juhasz added:

[H]ow could the woodpecker have evolved its special shock-absorbers? If it had started without them, then all the woodpeckers that were alive would have beaten out their brains long ago. Therefore, there should be no woodpeckers left. And if there had ever been a time when woodpeckers did not drill holes in trees they would not have needed the shock-absorbers anyway (2001).

Finally, we should also address the claim that woodpeckers are pests, and in no way beneficial. Woodpeckers help control insects (one woodpecker can eat up to 2,000 ants in one day) and limit the spread of tree diseases by destroying insect carriers. Also, the roosting holes created by woodpeckers are frequently used by birds of many other species (Clench and Austin, 1995, 15:90).

The fact is, woodpeckers are here, and they do things that defy Darwinism. Unlike evolutionists, creationists can adequately explain the woodpecker without contradicting their convictions concerning origins: God created the woodpecker with unique characteristics, and endowed it with particular instincts that cause it to do what it does. Woodpeckers are strong evidence for a divine Designer, as are all other
living organisms.

REFERENCES

Bassett, David V. (no date), “The Wonderful Woodpecker: Jehovah’s Jaw-Jarring Jackhammer,” [On-line], URL: http://www.creationevidence.org/ cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/qustn_mon/ qustn_mon.html.

Butt, Kyle (2005), "What Do the Finches Prove?," [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3051.

Clench, Mary Heimerdinger and Oliver L. Austin, Jr. (1995), “Birds,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica), 15:1-112.

“Downy Woodpecker” (1999), Canadian Wildlife Services, [On-line],URL: http://www.britishcolumbia.com/Wildlife/wildlife/birds/cw/cw_ downywoodpecker.html.

“Downy Woodpecker” (2003), Nature of New England, [On-line], URL: http://www.nenature.com/DownyWoodpecker.htm.

Eckhardt, Liesl (2001), “Melanerpes carolinus,” ed. Phil Myers, [On-line], URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/ accounts/information /Melanerpes_carolinus.html.

Fergus, Chuck (no date), “Woodpeckers,” Pennsylvania Game Commission, [On-line], URL: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/w_notes/woodpeck.htm.

Garelli, Juan (no date), “Social Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://attachment.edu.ar/socialevl.html.

“How Many Pecks Can a Woodpecker Peck?” (2007), Wild Bird Centers, [On-line], URL: http://www.wildbird.com/species-w.html.

Juhasz, David (2001), “The Incredible Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/woodpecker.asp.

“Knock on Wood” (2004), National Wildlife Federation, [On-line], URL: http://www.nwf.org/gowild/kzpage.cfm?siteid=3&departmentid= 76&articleid=188.

“The Malayan Woodpecker” (2002), PageWise,[On-line], URL: http://mama.essortment.com/malayanwoodpeck_rizb.htm.

“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities: Master Builders of the Forest” (no date), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, [On-line], URL: http://www.fmf.ca/PW/PW_report8.pdf.

“Pileated Woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus” (1981) [On-line], URL: http://www.otterside.com/htmfiles/woodp5.htm.

Ryan, Rusty (2003), “Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker’s Tongue,” [On-line], URL: http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm.

“Woodpecker” (no date), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/woodpecker.html.

“Woodpeckers,” (2009), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php.

“Wondrous Woodpeckers: The Design of a Birdbrain” (2002), Project Creation, [On-line], URL: http://www.projectcreation.org/Spot
lights/2002/Jan02.htm.

Yahya, Harun (2004), “The Design of the Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL: http://harunyahya.com/70wood
pecker_sci28.php.

The Immutability of God by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1398

The Immutability of God

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

[NOTE: During the February 12, 2009 Darwin Day debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker listed 14 alleged Bible discrepancies as evidence against God’s existence. His first claim (six minutes and 25 seconds into his opening speech) was that the Bible gives contradictory descriptions of God because it says that God changes and does not change. His allegation is refuted in the following article written by Caleb Colley in 2004.]

The Bible plainly asserts that the qualities of God have never changed, and will never change. Consider a sampling of what the inspired writers penned concerning God’s immutability:

• Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the Earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”
• Psalm 102:25-27: “Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.”
• Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”
• Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
• James 1:17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”

Some assert that the concept of an unchanging God is ridiculous. As one critic put it,

Christians believe that [a] their God is “unchanging.” They also believe that [b] their God is jealous, as mentioned explicitly in Exodus 20:5, and that [c] their God is also full of wrath and anger (numerous citations can be found in the Bible which support this). If the Christian believes [a], [b], and [c] above, then according to them their God must always be jealous, angry and wrathful (i.e., God must be pretty miserable) [Thorn, 2000, parenthetical item in orig.].

Of course, the fact that our unchanging God has emotions such as anger and wrath (and emotions that are antithetical to anger and wrath, such as happiness and gladness, which Thorn ignored completely), based on His perfectly righteous nature, does not detract from His deity. After all, if God’s nature did not cause sin to anger Him, and righteousness did not please Him, His nature, as revealed in the Bible, would be both false and irrelevant. God would be incapable of making decisions based on His objective standards, and would be unqualified to be our God.

God, in His relations with humans, is unchanging in that He opposes all sin and unrighteousness, while approving and appreciating righteous living, and giving all men the opportunity to be saved. God certainly is capable of changing His mind without changing His nature. For example, God tested Moses by telling him to get out of the way, so that God could destroy the “stiff-necked” nation of Israel, and make of Moses a great nation (Exodus 32:9-10). Moses, however, pleaded with God, and He “relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people” (verse 14). God knew ahead of time what Moses’ answer would be, just as He knew that Abraham would do His will when He tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his special son, Isaac (see Genesis 22; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalm 94:9-10; John 2:25). In this instance, God simply presented Moses (later labeled the meekest man in the entire world—Numbers 12:3) with the opportunity to become the ancestor of the divinely chosen people, but Moses refused, choosing to appeal to God’s mercy. God considered Moses’ humble appeal when He decided to preserve Israel; it was the unchanging nature of God that caused Him, in this particular instance, to act as He did (cf. Genesis 6:6; Jonah 3:10).

God had not promised a particular punishment to the people of Israel for their disobedience—God did not break a promise to Israel. God cannot lie, and He certainly did not do so in this case (see Colley, 2004a). God had merely told Moses what He intended to do, and reciprocated Moses’ “repentance,” on the behalf of the entire nation, with His own.

Inherent in the fact that God cannot lie (see Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Romans 3:4; Hebrews 6:18) is the fact that His characteristics do not change. If they did, the righteous attributes of humans that please Him one day might not please Him on the next day, and humans would never know what to do in order to satisfy Him. Worse still, we might approach the judgment seat of Christ in the Day of Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10), only to discover that God had created different rules, of which we were unaware.

To twist Exodus 32:9-14 into an attack on God’s reliability, then, is blasphemous. Instead, we should understand the clear implications of the passage: (1) the fervent prayers of righteous people really do “avail much” (James 5:16); (2) it is unpleasant for God to destroy His creatures (2 Peter 3:9; see Keil, 1996, 1:468); and (3) God allows Himself to change His purpose when the actions of humans justify it (Jonah 3:10; see Coffman, 1985, p. 444).

Some assert that the Bible is not reliable because it makes evident that God changed the requirements for serving Him when He nailed the Old Law to the cross of Christ (Colossians 2:16). They assert that when God put away the Old Law and brought the New Law into effect, God evinced that He can change, so, even if He does exist, He cannot be trusted. Indeed, if it were true that God’s changing of some requirements rendered His divine nature altered, then the biblical concept of God would be shattered, because, in that case, God frequently would have stood in complete contradiction of Himself. And so would Jesus when He spoke certain teachings while in human form. As one skeptic, writing for Agnostic Review of Christianity, commented: “If Jesus has always existed, has always been the same, and is also God, then this deity is psychotic. He issues laws that he ignores, commands people to obey these laws, rebukes them for trying to follow the laws, and practices situational ethics” (“Sticks and Stones…,” n.d., emp. added). First-century gnostic Christians, in attempting to reconcile perceived differences between the character of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, asserted that two distinct gods were responsible for the two testaments. They believed that the Old Testament god, Jehovah, was bumbling and inept, while the god revealed in the New Testament was the true god (see Layton, 1987, p. 134).

However, God did not change His nature in order to bring the New Testament into effect. The New Testament church, in which men can be saved from damnation, was in the mind of God from before the Earth was established; it was His eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:10-11). In fact, the Old Testament contains many prophecies concerning the church (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 2:2-3; Daniel 2:44; see Silcox, n.d.), helping us to see that one purpose of the Old Law was to prepare humanity (in several different aspects, not the least of which was the establishment of Christ’s lineage) for the coming of Christ and His Law (Luke 24:44; Galatians 3:24). When the Old Law was nailed to Christ’s cross, the rules for obedience were changed in order to allow men to appropriate the blood of Christ to their souls (to wash away sin; see Acts 22:16). The blood of bulls and goats no longer was necessary in order to appease God’s anger, because the perfect Lamb had been sacrificed once and for all (Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 3:18).

Finally, observe that the fact that God is not opposed to all change does not impose upon His immutability. He instituted the changing seasons (Genesis 1:14), and Psalm 102:25-26 illustrates that the Earth can be changed by an unchanging God, a fact that also was illustrated quite graphically by the Noahic Flood (Genesis 6-8). And, when we leave this life to slip into the timeless side of eternity, we will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

God is not going to budge in His firm stand against sin. Ultimately, unforgiven sin will be punished (Romans 6:23; see Colley, 2004b). However, just as sin always has demanded strict punishment in every dispensation, God always has freely offered salvation to those willing to obey His message. God will pardon, through Christ’s sacrifice, those who repent and obey Him.

REFERENCES

Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Exodus (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Colley, Caleb (2004a), “God Cannot Lie,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561.

Colley, Caleb (2004b), “God’s Mercy and Justice,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1860.

Keil, C.F. (1996 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament—The Pentateuch (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Layton, Bentley (1987), The Gnostic Scriptures (Canterbury: SCM Press).

Silcox, Preston (no date), “The Church Promised and Prophesied,” [On-line], URL: http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/SilcoxP5.htm.

“Sticks and Stones, or, Jesus the Son of God Thumbs His Nose at God the Father” (no date), Agnostic Review of Christianity, [On-Line], URL: http://members.fortunecity.com/brad1/stick_stone.html.

Thorn, Anton (2000), “An Unchanging God?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Unchanging_God.htm.

The Human Skin—Engineered by God by Taylor Richardson

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1411

The Human Skin—Engineered by God

by	Taylor Richardson

In what single place can you find the following things: 19 million cells, 625 sweat glands, 90 oil glands, 65 hairs, 19 feet of blood vessels, and 19,000 sensory cells? The answer: in one square inch of human skin! The human skin is considered the largest organ in the body (about 16% of your body weight), and covers an area of 20 square feet. Your skin, or integument, has many different protective and metabolic functions that help keep your body stabilized.

SKIN LAYERS

You have two skin layers. The outer layer, the epidermis, consists of rows of cells about 12 to 15 deep, and is between 0.07 and 0.12 millimeters thick (about as thick as a piece of paper). This top layer is composed mainly of dead cells that are being replaced constantly by newer cells. Isaac Asimov explained the process in his book, The Human Body:

The cells at the base of the epidermis are alive, and are constantly growing and multiplying so that cell after cell is pushed upward and away from the dermis. Without a blood supply, the cell dies and much of it, aside from the inert keratin, atrophies. The vicissitudes of existence are constantly rubbing away some of this dead material from the surface of our body, but this is constantly being replaced from below, and we retain our epidermis ever fresh (1963, pp. 258-259).

Sometimes, when areas of the skin are subjected to constant friction, the epidermis responds by thickening itself in that area, creating a callus. These patches of hard skin usually are found on the soles of feet of people who walk barefoot, and on the hands of farmers. It is as though the dermis had traded in its thin plastic gloves for a pair made of leather.

The inner layer, or dermis, is a spongy, leathery area that is about one to two millimeters thick, consisting mainly of collagen (a fibrous protein found in the skin) connective tissue. The dermis is joined to the epidermis by a grooved surface that contains nerves, blood vessels, hair follicles, sebaceous glands, and sweat glands, all of which have important functions. Each hair follicle, for example, contains one hair that transmits the reception of touch to sensory nerves around the follicle. Sebaceous glands produce a waxy secretion called sebum, which helps to waterproof the skin. Sweat glands help to cool the skin and keep the body temperature constant.

FUNCTIONS OF SKIN

One of the most important functions of the skin is to provide us with a sense of touch. Werner Gitt explained it best:

The most important property of the skin is that it contains our sense of touch… The sense of touch is difficult to investigate. All other senses have a definite key organ which can be studied, but the skin is spread over the entire body and cannot easily be delimited or “switched off.” In the case of vision, scientists can observe blind persons to learn more about seeing, and they can study deaf people to learn more about hearing. But this is impossible for the sense of touch (1999, p. 41).

Receptors (from the Latin word receptor, meaning “recorder”) located at the ends of nerve fibers are used to detect stimuli and convert them into neural impulses to be sent to the brain through the peripheral and central nervous systems. Receptors also are located in the internal organs, muscles, and skeletal joints, and can detect information such as the temperature of a cup of coffee or the roughness of sand paper. Although we “touch” with our epidermis, the sense of touch actually is recorded in the dermis and passed on to the central nervous system.

Another important function of the skin is that it helps the body keep a constant temperature. Gillen, et al., wrote: “The word homeostasis comes from two Greek terms, homeo (alike or the same) and stasis (standing or remaining). Thus the word means remaining the same” (1999, italics, parenthetical items, and emp. in orig.). A person’s average body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but if it increases by 7 or 8 degrees, and remains there for any of length of time, a person will almost certainly die. So how does the body keep a generally constant temperature? It does so via a method of cooling known as perspiration. The main sources of body heat are the internal organs that work all the time, such as the heart and kidneys. The heat created by these organs is carried off by the blood and distributed evenly throughout the body. This is an efficient way to diffuse the heat at a slow pace, but what happens when the body must get rid of heat quickly? Asimov explained:

We are equipped with tiny glands distributed all over our skin, about two million of them all together, the purpose of which is to bring water to the surface of the skin. On the surface this water is vaporized and heat is in this manner withdrawn from the body. The glands are sweat glands and the liquid produced is sweat or perspiration. A sweat gland consists of a tiny coiled tube, the main body of which situated deep in the dermis. The tube straightens out finally and extends up through the epidermis. The tiny opening on the surface is a pore and is just barley visible to the naked eye. When you are working or playing hard, and heat production is increased, the sweat glands accelerate their production of perspiration. This is also true when the temperature is unusually high. The rate of production may then outstrip the rate of evaporation, particularly if humidity is high, since the rate of evaporation declines with the rise in humidity. Perspiration will then collect on the body in visible drops and we are conscious of sweating (p. 265, italics in orig.).

The temperature determines how many sweat glands a person has, in the same way that the amount of sunlight determines how much melanin is in the skin. People who live in hot, humid climates tend to have more sweat glands, and produce perspiration with a smaller concentration of salt, than people living in colder, drier climates.

The skin also acts like a chemical-processing plant for the entire body. When you are outside, the skin absorbs ultraviolet rays from the Sun, and then uses them to convert chemicals into vitamin D. This vitamin is very important to our body because it helps stimulate the absorption of calcium. Without calcium, our bones grow thin and brittle, eventually leading to diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia (skeletal diseases that weaken bones). In addition, the epidermis contains a special pigment called melanin, which is responsible for the variety of color in our skin. It also acts as a protection against ultraviolet light. The melanin absorbs ultraviolet light without harming itself, and acts as a protective covering over the area beneath it. Like vitamin D, melanin is formed by the exposure to sunlight, so people in tropical regions have more melanin to protect them from the harmful ultraviolet rays, while people in northern regions have little traces of melanin because the Sun is rarely out for long periods of time. But not all people are able to produce melanin in their bodies. Occasionally, individuals are born who are incapable of forming any melanin at all. Their skin and hair are pinkish-white and their eyes are pinkish-red, because the tiny blood vessels are visible in the iris of their eyes (where there are typically colors such as blue, green, hazel, and brown). A person with this condition is referred to as an albino, indicating that they lack pigmentation in their skin. Albinism is not limited just to humans, but also is found in other species of animals as well (e.g., the white rat, the white elephant, the white tiger, etc.).

Furthermore, the skin also helps protect the inside of the body. If you have ever been to an amusement park, you probably have seen the bumper cars that you can drive to bump into other cars. Collisions in those cars are perfectly safe because of the rubber rings that surround the cars. The skin is like those rubber rings in that it acts like a shock absorber when you fall, protecting all of your internal organs. If we didn’t have this “shock absorber,” it would be practically impossible to do physical activities without damaging internal organs or bruising easily.

It is impossible that evolution could have produced such an important and complex organ as the human skin. The many intricacies of its functions are evidence of a Creator. One writer remarked: “The skin is a miracle of evolutionary engineering: it waterproofs the body, blocks out and destroys harmful bacteria, regulates temperature, and continuously communicates with the brain” (McCutcheon, 1989, p. 113). Yes, the skin is a “miracle” all right—but not a miracle of evolution. And yes, the skin was “engineered”—but the engineer was God!

REFERENCES

Asimov, Isaac (1963), The Human Body (New York: New American Library).

Gillen, Alan L., Frank J. Sherwin III, and Alan C. Knowles (1999), The Human Body: An Intelligent Design (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society).

Gitt, Werner (1999), The Wonder of Man (Bielefeld, Germany: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung E.V.).

McCutcheon, Marc (1989), The Compass in Your Nose (Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher).

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN" Even His Brothers Did Not Believe (7:1-9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

Even His Brothers Did Not Believe (7:1-9)

INTRODUCTION

1. In a gospel designed to create faith in Jesus, John tells of those who lacked faith...
   a. Those in His own nation - Jn 1:11
   b. Those among His disciples - Jn 6:66

2. For a time, even His own brothers (named in Mt 13:55) did not believe...
   a. As recorded in Jn 7:5
   b. As implied in Mk 3:21
   c. As foretold in Ps 69:8
   -- Though they eventually came to believe in Jesus - Ac 1:14

3. Why did Jesus' brothers not believe in Him from the very beginning...?
   a. Had they not seen the miracles?
   b. Did they not know Him as well as anyone?

[Reasons why they did not believe at first, and the reason they came to
believe at last, can provide some valuable lessons for us today...]

I. WHY THEY DID NOT BELIEVE

   A. POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THEIR UNBELIEF...
      1. Perhaps they were blinded by familiarity
         a. As is often said, "Familiarity breeds contempt"
         b. This hindered many who knew Jesus from childhood - Mt 13:54-58
         c. A problem common among prophets - Mt 13:57; Jn 4:44
      2. Perhaps they were blinded by envy
         a. Large crowds had been following Jesus everywhere
         b. Making it difficult for His family to speak to Him at times- Mt 12:46-47
         c. Jealousy can be a powerful hindrance to seeing things clearly
      3. Perhaps they were blinded by preconceptions
         a. Many Jews had wrong conceptions concerning the kingdom - cf. Jn 6:15
         b. His brothers had their ideas as to what He should do - Jn 7:2-4
         c. It is easy to reject someone if they do not live up to your expectations
      -- For one reason or another, Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him

   B. A WARNING FOR US TODAY...
      1. Do we let familiarity blind us to the truth?
         a. Do we reject what a close friend or relative may tell us?
         b. Especially since they have their own faults of which we are well aware?
         -- Truth can be communicated by imperfect messengers - cf. Ph1:15-18
      2. Do we let envy get in the way of truth?
         a. Are we jealous that we might be wrong and others may be right?
         b. Do we think that by admitting others are right, it somehow makes them better?
         -- Truth (and salvation!) is too precious to let envy or jealousy keep us from it
      3. Do we let preconceived notions obstruct a clear evaluation of the truth?
         a. Refusing to reexamine our cherished beliefs?
         b. Rejecting a view or teaching simply because we have never heard it before?
         -- Truth requires a willingness to hear, and has nothing to
            fear from investigation - Ac 17:11

[Don't discount the potential impact of familiarity, envy, or
preconceptions.  Such blinded the brothers of Jesus so that even His
miracles did not convince them!  What finally prompted them to believe
is worthy of note...]

II. HOW THEY CAME TO BELIEVE

   A. THE REASON FOR THEIR FAITH...
      1. As noted previously, Jesus' brothers eventually became disciples
         a. They were with the apostles after the Ascension - Ac 1:12-14
         b. James, the Lord's brother, became a key figure in the church
            at Jerusalem - Ac 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Ga 2:9

          c. James and Judas wrote their respective epistles - Jm 1:1; Jude 1
         d. According to secular history, James was martyred for his faith
      2. What changed them?  The resurrection of Jesus from the dead!
         a. Jesus appeared to James - 1Co 15:7
         b. The others may have seen Him on other occasions - cf. 1Co 15:6
      3. The significance of Jesus' resurrection
         a. Miracles can be faked
         b. Rising from the dead cannot!
      -- The resurrection shattered any blinders of familiarity, envy, preconceptions

   B. A BLESSING FOR US TODAY...
      1. It is understandable that one might find the gospel story incredible
         a. A man born of a virgin?
         b. A man who was the Son of God?
         c. A man who supposedly...
            1) Walked on water?
            2) Calmed the seas?
            3) Fed thousands with five loaves and two fish?
            4) Healed the sick and lame, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead?
            5) Was Himself raised from the dead?
      2. Yet there is a good reason to believe the incredible story!
         a. That is, the conversion of those like Jesus' brothers
            1) Who at first did not believe (for whatever reason)
            2) Who were persuaded by overwhelming empirical evidence
               - cf. Ac 1:3; 10:39-41
            3) Who never recanted their testimony, despite hardship and persecution
         b. What else can explain the transformation of Jesus' brothers?
            1) It was the same thing that transformed the disciples of Jesus!
            2) "If the disciples were totally disappointed and on the
               verge of desperate flight because of the very real reason
               of the crucifixion, it took another very real reason in
               order to transform them from a band of disheartened and
               dejected Jews into the most self-confident missionary
               society in world history." - Pinchas Lapide, former
               Chairman of the Applied Linguistics Department at
               Israel's Bar-Iland University (TIME, May 7, 1979)
            3) This Orthodox Jewish scholar concluded that a bodily
               resurrection could possibly have been that reason!
      -- The conversion of His brothers and others who first doubted
         should strengthen our faith in Jesus!

CONCLUSION

1. The unbelief of Jesus' brothers serves as a warning...
   a. How easily one can be blinded by such things as familiarity, envy,
      and preconceptions
   b. How carefully we must give others a fair hearing

2. The unbelief of Jesus' brothers also serves as a blessing...
   a. Their eventual conversion implies overwhelming evidence of Jesus' resurrection
   b. Since we believe in Jesus through the words of such men, the
      foundation of our faith is stronger

With the help of their own example, we can heed the exhortation given by
one of Jesus' brothers:

   "But you, beloved, BUILDING YOURSELVES UP ON YOUR MOST HOLY FAITH,
   praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,
   looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
                                                         (Jude 20-21)             

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

 

A State of Emergency by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/02/19/a-state-of-emergency/#more-13585

A State of Emergency

President Trump has declared “A State of Emergency” on our Southern border in an effort to secure funding to build his promised border wall.

This declaration has further polarized Republicans and Democrats. Conservatives and Liberals. Pro-Trump and Non-Trump advocates. Of course, the media is having a field day with political pundits in their respective corners pontificating about the merits of this declaration or the lack thereof.

Predictably, many on social media are passionately sharing their views. Some with harsh and hateful language. Sadly some who profess allegiance to Christ have dimmed and diminished their light with vitriolic speech.

I agree there is a national emergency, but it is even more serious than our porous southern border and the problem of illegal immigration. So, before our readers get riled up and are ready to comment pro or con about this issue, this post is not political. I’m not espousing a position on the President or his proclamation.

The state of emergency I’m speaking of is a spiritual, moral and ethical crisis. It is a crisis of the soul.

There is a spiritual crisis when tolerance is more valued than Truth.

There is a spiritual crisis when the opinions of celebrities, sports stars, and political leaders are preferred over the Word of God.

There is a spiritual crisis when relativism is revered more than righteousness.

There is a spiritual crisis when sensual gratification, choice, and convenience are cherished more than the life of an unborn child.

There is a spiritual crisis when politicians applaud the passage of a bill that allows for late-term abortions up to the time of birth instead of weeping over the barbaric and inhumane disregard for life.

There is a spiritual crisis when Christians believe that politicians are the answer to our nation’s ills instead of Jesus Christ and His revealed Word.

There is a spiritual crisis when religious leaders are more concerned with their positions, popularity, and pocketbooks than in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ.

There is a spiritual crisis when sexual perversion is celebrated and the sanctity of marriage is disregard, debased and denounced.

There is a spiritual crisis when we are more concerned about our personal comfort than the content of our character.

There is a spiritual crisis when material prosperity is more important than spiritual growth.

There is a spiritual crisis when we ignore injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination instead of standing for what is right.

There is a spiritual crisis when we believe we are self-sufficient and can thrive alone without the support of a Church-Family.

There is a spiritual crisis when we abdicate our personal responsibility instead of being accountable and answerable for our actions and attitudes.

While I’m an optimist by nature, these humanistic trends do not bode well for our nation’s future. However, “it is far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” While I may not have much direct influence of what happens in the White House, the Court House or the State House, I can be an example of goodness and godliness in my house. In the Lord’s house where I worship. With my family and friends. And in the community where I live.

In his 1921 commencement address at Wheaton College, our 30th President Calvin Coolidge spoke the truth that is needed today. “We do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development, we do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more laws, we need more religion.”

“We do not need more of the things that are seen,” Coolidge added, “We need more of the things that are unseen.”

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

INTERDENOMINATIONAL REVIVAL? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/10/interdenominational-revival-by-steve.html

INTERDENOMINATIONAL REVIVAL? by steve finnell

Is interdenominational revival a Biblical concept? Can you in your wildest dreams imagine the apostle Paul organizing an interdenominational revival?

A first century interdenominational revival could have been as follows.

Sundays Preacher: Rev. Law Keeper from the First Judaizer Church. Note: Christian Judaizers believed that you had to continue to practice the law of Moses to be saved. (Galatians 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. NKJV

Mondays Preacher: Rev. Liar from the First Christian Church of Hypocrisy. (1 Timothy 2-3 speaking lies and hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created by those who believe the truth.)NKJV

Tuesdays Preacher: Rev. Hymenaeus from The Christian Resurrection Has Past Church. (2 Timothy 17-18 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.) NKJV

Wednesdays Preacher: Rev. Distorter from the The Jerusalem Christian Perverter Church. (Acts 20:30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up , speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.) NKJV

Thursdays Preacher: The apostle Paul from the Lord's Church.

Can you imagine the Apostle Paul participating this kind of interdenominational revival or worship.

Twenty First Century Interdenominational Revival?

Sundays Preacher: A preacher who believes some old testament laws that have not be repeated under the new covenant are still in force.

Tuesdays Preacher: A preacher who believe that water baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of sins and teaches that men are saved by grace alone, or faith only.

Wednesdays Preacher: A preacher who believes it is valid to pray to the pope, the Virgin Mary, and other dead Christians.

Thursdays Preacher: A preacher who believes that men today have the gift of tongues, and other miraculous gifts of the Spirit. And preaches you must speak in tongues to be saved.

Fridays Preacher: A preacher who believes that Jesus is simply one of many ways to salvation.

Saturdays Preacher: A preacher who believes Jesus loves division and does not judge erroneous doctrine.

Sundays Preacher: A preacher who believes that God the Father was at one time a man and then became God and that all men can become Gods. 

Can you imagine the apostle Paul sanctioning interdenominational revivals, and worship?

Galatians 1:8 Let God's curses fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other way to be saved than the one we told you about; yes, if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. (The Living Bible -Paraphrased)

Can you imagine God approving interdenominational revivals or worship.

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. (NKJV)

Bibliography for Jude by Charles Hess

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Hess/Charles/Albert/1929/Comments/Jude/biblio.html

Bibliography for Jude

Kurt Aland, and others, Editors, The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, third edition, published in Stuttgart, printed in West Germany, 1975.

William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Ginrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Second Edition, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1979.

William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1956.

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Blackie, London, no date.

Samuel W. Barnum, Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible, Appleton, New York, 1915.

James H. Charlesworth, Editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments, Volume 1, Doubleday, Garden City, 1983.

Adam Clarke, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a Commentary and Critical Notes, Abingdon-Cokesbury, Nashville, no date.

A. Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, Schocken, New York, 1975.

Sidney Collett, All About the Bible, Revell, Westwood, 1959.

J. R. Dummelow, The One Volume Bible Commentary, Macmillan, New York, 1974.

Charles J. Ellicott, Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, by W. Sanday, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1981.

Samuel Fallows, The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, Volume 3, Howard-Severance, Chicago, 1908.

Jerry Falwell and others, Editors, Liberty Bible Commentary, The Old-time Gospel Hour, Lynchburg, 1983.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, 1968.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, and J. M. Powis Smith, The Bible, An American Translation, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1943.

J. P. Green, Senior, The Interlinear Bible, Hendrickson, Peabody, 1985.

Everett F. Harrison, The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Iverson, New York, 1971.

Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Moody, Chicago, 1978.

Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Edited by Leslie F. Church, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978.

H. I. Hester, The Heart of the New Testament, Quality, Liberty, 1972.

Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Littell, Philadelphia, 1831.

The Holy Bible, Standard American Edition, Newly Edited by the American Revision Committee, Thomas Nelson, Nashville Copyrights 1901, 1929.

Flavius Josephus, The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, Translated into English by William Whitson, Winston, Philadelphia, no date.

B. W. Johnson, The Peoples' New Testament With Explanatory Notes, Gospel Light, Delight, no date.

Raymond C. Kelcy, The Living word Commentary, The Letters of Peter and Jude, Sweet, Austin, 1972.

Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume II, Translator and Editor: Geofrey W. Bromiley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1964.

Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in one Volume and Edited by G. K. and Gerhard Friedrich, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1985.

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of Saint Peter, Saint John and Saint Jude, Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1961.

J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, Macmillan, Toronto, 1923.

J. Curtis Manor, Adventures from the Pentateuch, Star, Fort Worth, 1994.

Alfred Marshall, The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1975.

J. Vernon McGee, Notes and Outlines, Through the Bible, Pasadena, no date.

Raymond Kelcy, Living Word Commentary,

George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954.

George Morrish, A Concordance of the Septuagint, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, no date.

John L. Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Volumes I and II, Old Paths, Rosemead, 1959.

New American Standard Bible, Holman, Philadelphia, 1976.

The New Chain-Reference Bible, Fourth Improved Edition, containing Thompson's Original and Complete System of Bible Study, Kirkbride, Indianapolis, 1964.

The New English Bible, Oxford University Press, 1961.

The New Testament, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, New York, 1974.

H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, University Press, Cambridge, 1949.

James Orr, General Editor, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1976.

James I. Packer and others, Editors, The Bible Almanac, The Old-time Gospel Hour, Lynchburg, 1980.

The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation by Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, published by special arrangement with Samuel Bagster & Sons, Limited, London, printed in the United States of America, 1975.

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition.

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Revell, Old Tappan, 1976.

Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, The Apostolic Fathers, Penguin, Middlesex, 1981.

Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1961.

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Fourth Edition, Clark, Edinburgh, 1953.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1946.

W. E. Vine, The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1984.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam, Springfield, 1977.

Charles B. Williams, The New Testament, A Translation in the Language of the People, Moody, Chicago, 1952.

Guy N. Woods, New Testament Commentaries, Peter, John, Jude, Gospel Advocate, Nashville, 1976.

Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Funk Wagnalls, New York, no date.

E. M. Zerr, Bible Commentary, Guardian of Truth, Bowling Green, 1952.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible in Five Volumes, General Editor Merrill C. Tenney, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1980.

Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1973.

Published in The Old Paths Archive (http://www.oldpaths.com)