Evidence of Global Flood Drainage Hidden in Gulf of Mexico’s Whopper Sand

Evidence of Global Flood Drainage Hidden in Gulf of Mexico’s Whopper Sand

(Receding Floodwaters Bury Deep-sea Oil)

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Deep-sea-Oil-Gulf-MAP.MMS-USDOI

And the waters returned [i.e., reversed] from off the earth continually [literally “continually going and returning”]; and after the end of Day 150 the waters were abated [literally “unfilled”, i.e., drained, lacked or lost fullness]. (Genesis 8:3)

No one should be surprised when global geology data match the Bible’s record of the Genesis Flood, because true science corroborates Scripture.(1) To illustrate, Genesis 8:3 is now corroborated by petroleum geologists’ stratigraphic data gathered from 1544 widespread data points, located across huge landmasses in North America, South America, and Africa.(2)

Highlights of the Flood’s catastrophic history are reported in Genesis chapters 6-9.

After 40 days and nights of unprecedented rainfall, combined with “the fountains of the great deep [being] broken up”,(3) worldwide oceans rose (“increased”), and rose more (“prevailed and greatly increased”), and rose even more (“prevailed exceedingly”)!(4)

Eventually floodwaters overwhelmed (“covered”) what were then Earth’s highest mountains, with 15 cubits to spare.(4) The catastrophe’s zenith occurred at day 150, after which flooding reversed, thereafter actively receding until the deluge drained and landmasses dried out.(5)

DeepSea-Oil-rig.RadaractiveBlog

DEEP-SEA OIL operation in Gulf of Mexico (photo source/credit: Radaractive BlogSpot)

Whopper Sand Puzzles Evolutionist Geologists!

That pivotal reversal left its marks all over the world’s stratigraphic rock layers, one example of which is “a large, unusually thick and extensive sand body in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico [7,600—10,000 feet deep!] … so large and completely unexpected that the oil industry dubbed it the ‘Whopper Sand’.”(2)

Whopper Sand [is] a result of this rapid drainage shift at the Zuni/Tejas (K-Pg) boundary, when water suddenly began to drain off the North American continent … into the GOM [Gulf of Mexico], permanently reversing the earlier direction of flow. This shift is marked by the sudden change in deposition from the uppermost Zuni layer (the Lower Paleocene Midway Shale) to the lowermost Tejas (Paleocene-Eocene Whopper Sand). In a Flood model, this would coincide with the change in water direction described for Day 150+ of the Flood.(2)

Before day 150 transcontinental tides drenched continents with sedimentary sheet washings.(6)

However, “from the end of day 150” (literal Hebrew in Genesis 8:3) a remarkable reversal (“return” of floodwaters) occurred, followed by continually widespread and explosively powerful drainage dynamics.

Initial drainage rates in the Paleocene, coinciding with a sudden drop in sea level at the onset of the Tejas, were likely high volume and highly energetic, providing a possible mechanism to transport the thick Whopper Sand into deep-water. Over time, the drainage volume lessened, lowering the energy available for transport, until the present-day pattern developed.(2)

Uniformitarian thinking cannot account for the Gulf’s deep-water Whopper Sand formation, so oil companies were slow to discover it.(6),(7)

If this is a post-Flood deposit, what local catastrophe can explain this massive sand unit? … [T]he size and scale of the Whopper Sand is beyond any deposit like it in the world. The erosive power to produce this much sand and to transport it so far would have likely affected most of the contiguous [lower 48] USA … making it nearly impossible for animal and human survival. As described above, the best explanation for the Whopper Sand is at the onset of the receding water phase of the Flood.(2)

If oil companies had informed earlier Gulf of Mexico explorations with Flood geology insights, rather than uniformitarian assumptions, they could have found the Whopper Sand formation (and its billions of barrels of oil!) much earlier than they did.(6)

Thus, not only can careful research corroborate facts reported in Genesis, sometimes using Scripture-guided science can lead to billions of dollars in undersea oil!(2),(6)

WhopperSand-ICR-article.DavisWerner-map

REFERENCES

(1)  John 3:12 & 5:44-47. Corroborating Scripture is a priority for creation apologetics. See James J. S. Johnson, “Polar Bears, Fitted to Fill and Flourish”, Acts & Facts, 46(8):21 (August 2017), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/polar-bears-fitted-fill-flourish .

(2)  Tim L. Clarey, “Local Catastrophes or Receding Floodwater? Global Geologic Data that Refute a K-Pg (K-T) Flood/Post-flood Boundary”, Creation Research Society Quarterly,  54(2):100-120  (2017, actually published in June AD2018), with quotations from page 104; emphasis added.  The Gulf of Mexico’s Whopper Sand is located “nearly 200 miles (300 km) from the Lower Wilcox shelf margin, and far from any conventional sand source” (Clarey, page 103). Besides corroborating Genesis 7-8, Dr. Clarey’s comprehensive analysis (especially pages 113-114 & 117-118) debunks “worldly wise” fantasies of uniformitarian hydrology and so-called “saltational” evolution. The evolutionist notion of so-called “saltation” is mostly promoted by young-earth evolutionist Kurt Wise, a disciple of evolutionist-paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.

(3)  Genesis 7:11. Deep-water upwelling escalated till day 150 when flooding reversed (Genesis 8:2-3).

(4)  Genesis 7:17-20.

(5)  Genesis 8:3-14.s

(6)  Tim L. Clarey, “The Whopper Sand”, Acts & Facts, 44(3):14 (March 2015), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/whopper-sand .

(6)  Misidentifying “where” the Flood/post-Flood reversal occurred, as indicated in the world’s geologic sedimentary rock stratigraphy, has been used to promote evolutionary “saltation” notions, recently, by theistic YEE (young-earth evolutionist) Kurt Wise, as recently exposed by Dr. Tim Clarey.  See Tim L. Clarey’s CRSQ article cited above (in Footnote #2),  especially at pages 102 (“Regardless of whether it is 100 years or 300 years, this timespan severely limits the amount of catastrophic activity possible and the number of generations possible, especially for the largest mammals. Recently, [Kurt] Wise … has even used this limited amount of time to justify major evolutionary jumps, which he calls saltation, to explain the Cenozoic mammal record”) & pages 113-114. This alarming example of theistic evolution advocacy (by Kurt Wise) is aptly addressed by Dr. Clarey, on pages 113-114, as follows:

“Advocates for a K-Pg end of the Flood must assume all Paleogene and Neogene (Tejas) deposition occurred in this timeframe. For this reason, Wise (2017) has proposed evolutionary saltation to explain the mammal fossil record in the Cenozoic. Essentially, [Kurt] Wise is suggesting evolutionary changes at the species level and above, from one generation to the next. Surprisingly, this is more rapid evolution that that being proposed by most secular scientists.

Wise (2009, p. 143) has even proposed whales may have evolved after the Flood, and that “vestigial legs and hips in modern whales confirm legged ancestors of the whales existed only a short time ago.  Wise (2009, p. 144) has concluded that ‘mammal taxa which lack a fossil record from the Lower Eocene or before can be understood to have arisen after the Flood as subtaxa of ark kinds.’ Wise (2009, p. 136) has also pointed out that ‘44% of living mammal genera have no fossil record at all.’

However, just because the fossils of living mammals do not appear until later in the Cenozoic does not prove they ‘evolved’ after the Flood. Alternatively, this same mammalian pattern could be explained by ecological zonation, where many of the living mammal genera may have been living at the highest pre-Flood elevations, and therefore, were buried later. The Bible states that the Floodwaters prevailed 15 cubits upward of the highest hills (Gen. 7:20) and buried the cattle also, along with everything that creeped upon the Earth, including mankind (Gen. 7:21-23). Fifteen cubits (about 22-30 feet) likely did not provide sufficient depth for sediment to accumulate and make fossils on the highest elevations. The result would be a bleak to non-existent fossil record, similar to that of humans. This may help explain why so many living mammal genera are non-existent in the fossil record and/or appear later in the Cenozoic only.

Furthermore, advocates for a K-Pg Flood/post-Flood boundary have claimed the areal distribution of sedimentary rocks shifts from a more continental scale to a more regional scale at the end of the Cretaceous (Austin et al., 1994). And they have argued that water current directions, recorded in ripple directions, support this shift in pattern, going from large-scale continental flow to scattered, local-scale flow (Wise, 2009). However, the claim of a more localized distribution of the sedimentary rocks above the K-Pg (Tejas) primarily applies to the American West (Fig. 8), where disruptions in flow in and around the Rocky Mountains are to be expected, and is not observable on other continents like Africa and South America (Figs. 9 and 10).

Likewise, the claimed discontinuous nature of the current data above the K-Pg boundary also primarily applies to western North America where the Rocky Mountains were being actively uplifted in the early Cenozoic. The Rocky Mountains are also unusual in their wide swath across the North American continent. Other continents, like Africa and South America have more narrow (Andes Mountains) and/or more limited post-Cretaceous uplifts.

Finally, and in contrast to the claim of Wise (2009, p. 130), an examination of Art Chadwick’s (2001) current data does not show a clear shift in pattern “from consistent basin-ignoring transcontinental direction to scattered, basin-centering directions” below and above the K-Pg boundary, respectively. … [Chadwick’s 2001]data show a fairly scattered, non-uniform pattern existed from the Lower Cretaceous right on through the Cenozoic. Indeed, Chadwick (2001) himself noted that the trends in Paleocene rocks were consistent with the trends in the Upper Cretaceous rocks. The change from a more transcontinental flow pattern across North America to a more scattered pattern occurs much earlier in the Flood record, closer to the Mesozoic/Paleozoic boundary (Chadwick, 2001). However, as noted above (Fig. 3), there does appear to be some evidence of a major shift in drainage direction across the USA near the base of the Tejas megasequence.

The tremendous amount of Cenozoic sediment cannot be easily dismissed as the product of local catastrophes as previously suggested. There is too much volume globally, and the timeframe of 100 years precludes a post-Flood explanation. These sediments, and the fossils they contain, are better explained by the receding water phase of the Flood. Maintaining they are post-Flood as some creationists [or theistic evolutionists professing to be “creationists”, such as YEE saltationist Kurt Wise] claim, and deposited by some as of yet poorly described and unknown types of catastrophes, leads to evolutionary hypotheses beyond that of most secularist scientists.”

[Quoting Tim L. Clarey, “Local Catastrophes or Receding Floodwater? Global Geologic Data that Refute a K-Pg (K-T) Flood/Post-flood Boundary”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 54(2):100-120 (2017, belated publication, actually published in June AD2018), quoting from pages 113-114, with emphases added.]

profjjsj@aol.com   ><>  JJSJ



 

Fake ‘Science’ Scenario: Monkeys, Typewriters, & Disappearing Ink!

Fake ‘Science’ Scenario:  Monkeys, Typewriters, & Disappearing Ink!

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called   (1st Timothy 6:20)

Monkey-typing.BW

Imagine the Typing Monkeys Scenario—hordes of monkeys, randomly typing on typewriters, with unlimited supplies of time and paper! Can they “accidently” produce a work of Shakespeare, given unlimited time?

This imagined scenario (a/k/a “Infinite Monkey Theorem”) has been argued, by evolutionists, to imply that “given enough time” anything material, including physical lifeforms that “appear” to be intelligently designed (such as humans), can happen accidently.(1)

As creation science literature readers know, scientists have repeatedly debunked that “it-could-happen” analogy, exposing over-simplification flaws in evolutionist hypotheticals.(2)

However, some insist that even ridiculously small improbabilities are ultimately achievable, eventually. With infinite time, they say, any interrelated series of “lucky” coincidences can occur.

So, is infinite time the ultimate “rescuing device” for evolution’s improbabilities? Evolutionists say yes, worshipping unlimited time as a “hero” (a creator-substitute, actually) who carries the irrationally improbable into the realm of possible. But is literally “anything” is possible in our universe, given molecules-in-motion and infinite time? As applied to life’s origins (i.e., Earth’s humans and animals), the answer is absolutely NO, for many reasons.

One such reason is ENTROPY (a/k/a the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Entropy won’t go away, no matter how desperately evolutionary abiogenesis imaginations wish it to do so!(2)

The naturalistic creed of most evolutionists, however, requires them to account for complexity naturalistically. Somehow a scenario must be developed showing how a primeval chemical molecule could evolve into a replicating protein, then a complex protozoan, eventually a large beast, and finally a human being with an infinitely complex brain. …

[However], there is a universal scientific law that all natural processes tend to decrease complexity in the universe. This is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, or law of increasing entropy… decreased energy available, increased randomness and disorganization, garbled transmission of information, etc.(3)

Our universe is always governed by entropy—biochemical compounds needed for life (including DNA, RNA, amino acids, lipoproteins, glycoproteins, etc.) are no exceptions. Thermodynamically speaking, all of these basic biochemical building-blocks, needed to construct body parts for humans and animals, are inherently and inescapably unstable.

Thus, any accidental (i.e., random, lucky, un-designed) assembly of biochemicals, if it ever occurred in a so-called “primordial soup”, would be statistically more-likely-than-not to disintegrate with every passing moment. That means that any accidental bio-assemblies (even subparts of proteins, DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.) would be ephemeral at best, inclined to fall apart, all the time, with every passing split-second—insuring that infinite time is the destroyer of accidental biomolecules, not the “hero” that facilitates preserving (much less building) them from simple to complex.

As the triple-doctored A. E. Wilder-Smith once clarified at University of North Carolina, the Typing Monkeys Scenario is a false analogy.(4)

Forgetting, arguendo, that the monkeys will die of hunger, and ignoring the problem of sourcing unlimited paper, and omitting the inevitability of typewriter keys being ground to powder (long before anything that appears “intelligent” can be accidently typed)—the typewriters themselves, if comparable to our universe’s realities, must use “entropy ink“, a type of disappearing ink!

Specifically, whenever “evolutionary typewriter” keys strike paper, the ink (representing any inherently unstable organic compound) deposited must be continuously inclined to disintegrate. In other words, the ink used, at every split-second thereafter, is more-likely-than-not to disappear off the page!

Consequently, any “lucky” words or phrases will not survive for any meaningful timeframe!(4)

Eons of time guarantee that simian keypunchers can never type out Hamlet—the imagined luck is “not to be”, pardon the pun. Time plus entropy prevents spontaneous generation of life—end of fairytale!

In sum, before “survival of the fittest” could ever become plausible, there must be an accounting for an “arrival of the fittest”. And that requires opening and reading the pages of Genesis!

><> JJSJ profjjsj@aol.com

REFERENCES

(1)  Henry M. Morris III, “Willingly Ignorant”, Acts & Facts. 42(3):5-7 (March 2013), citing 2nd Peter 3:5.

(2)  See generally Duane Gish, “Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order”, Acts & Facts, vol. 5 (July 1976). See also, accord, Jeffrey Tomkins, “The Impossibility of Life’s Evolutionary Beginnings”, Acts & Facts, vol. 47(March 2018); Henry M. Morris, “Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy”, Acts & Facts (May 1973 Impact article); Charles McCombs, “Evolution Hopes You Don’t Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control”, Acts & Facts. 33(August 2004); James J. S. Johnson, “DNA and RNA: Providential Coding to ‘Revere’ God”,  Acts & Facts. 40(3):8-9 (March 2011); Brian Thomas, “Critique of ‘Primordial Soup’ Vindicates Creation Research” (2010), www.icr.org/article/critique-primordial-soup-vindicates .

(3)  Henry M. Morris, “The Mystery of Complexity”, Acts & Facts. vol. 31 (January 2002).

(4)  During a Q&A discussion, at an apologetics event in Chapel Hill (during the early 1980s, when I was attending law school at the University of North Carolina, earning my first doctorate), Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith explained this enlightening argument. See also, accord, A. E. Wilder-Smith, “The Origin of Conceptual Thought in Living Systems”,  Acts & Facts, vol. 22 (February 1993).   


 

NOT DEER OR BOVINE, SO IT MUST BE AN ‘ANTELOPE’

  NOT DEER OR BOVINE, SO IT MUST BE AN ‘ANTELOPE’

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg [dîshōn], and the wild ox, and the chamois.   (Deuteronomy 14:5)

Addax-Morocco.Haytem93-photo

ADDAX male [photo credit: Haytem93]

Most likely the “Pygarg” [dîshōn] is what today is called an ADDAX.  An ADDAX is a desert-dwelling member of the ANTELOPE family.  [See George Cansdale, ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE BIBLE LANDS (Zondervan, 1976), page 85, saying “Among several quaint animal names found only in the AV [i.e., KJV] is the Pygarg, from Heb. dishon; this is merely a transliteration of the [LXX] Gr. Word meaning ‘white-rumped’, by which [Greeks] had long ago described an antelope. … [The reference in Deuteronomy 14:5] between two animals that are probably desert species, coupled with a long-standing tradition, suggests that this is the Addax, Addax nasomaculatus, a desert antelope classified between the oryx and hartebeests”.]antelope-family.jjsj-PPTslide

But, what is an antelope?

Antelope, and antelope-like animals, live in many different parts of the world—except not in Australia or Antarctica. For examples, pronghorns live mostly in America’s Western prairie states. The oryx live in Israel and many of the Arabian deserts.  The Dorcas gazelle lives in the top half of Africa.  Impalas live in eastern and southern Africa.

Serengeti-migraton-wildebeest-zebra.ZambesiSafari-photo

Wildebeests and Zebras migrate through Serengeti  /  Zambesi Safari photo

The blue wildebeest (also called “gnu”) are famous for their huge migratory herds, that often mix with zebras, that seasonally travel through Tanzania’s Serengeti.  Tibetan antelope, of course, live in Tibet, as well as in neighboring parts of Asia.  The Indian antelope (also called “blackbuck”) lives in India, Pakistan, and Nepal.

GreatMigration-Serengeti.Pinterest

Great Migration (Serengeti & Masai Mara)  image credit: Pinterest

These plant-eating mammals (animals that give mother’s milk to their babies) are different from other four-legged mammals – such as deer, cattle, horses, camels, sheep, goats, pigs, cats, and dogs.

In many ways antelope (and antelope-like animals, like the pronghorns of America’s prairies) are like deer. But unlike deer, which have antlers (that grow and shed each year, then regrow the next year, and are later shed, etc.), antelopes have horns (like cattle, bison, sheep, and goats), which continue to slowly grow out from their heads, anchored to bony roots.

Impala-w-oxpecker.jjsj-PPTslide

Antelopes often live in flat grasslands (such as the grassy prairies of America’s West), where their plant-food is plentiful. However, in grasslands there are usually very few trees, so antelopes cannot hide in forests from other animals (such as mountain lions or wolves), so it is good that God made them to have great speed for running across flat land.  And that is what antelopes (and pronghorns, which are antelope-like animals) often do–with great speed!–when they run away from predators at high speeds—sometimes as fast as 55 miles/hour for a mile, or 42 miles/hour for 2 miles, or 35 miles/hour for 3 miles.Gazelle-foraging.jjsj-PPTslide

Dorcas is the Greek word for a gazelle, which is a member of the antelope family. Because gazelles are graceful and beautiful animals it is unsurprising that girl babies have been named Dorcas, including one who is mentioned in Scripture, in Acts chapter 9.Dorcas-philology.jjsj-PPTslide

Dorcas-Acts-chapter9.jjsj-PPTslide

In North America the primary antelope-like mammal is the PRONGHORN. To learn about this beautiful, graceful, and extremely speedy animals, see “Geography Matters, Illustrated by Pronghorns, Mountain Goats, and Old Testament Warfare”, posted at https://bibleworldadventures.com/2016/08/17/geography-matters-illustrated-by-pronghorns-mountain-goats-and-old-testament-warfare/ .

pronghorn-coming-fast.closeup-turning

When we see beauty, grace, strength, and speed — displayed in antelope (and antelope-like pronghorns) — we are reminded, by these living exhibits of God’s making, that God Himself is amazingly beautiful, graceful, strong, and quick, beyond our comprehension.


 

What Are those Animals Called ‘Unicorns’ in the Bible?

rhino-Indian-1horned-in-wild

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? Or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labor to him?  Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?  (Job 39:9-12)

Rhino-1horned-Indian.WWF

What Are those Animals Called ‘Unicorns’ in the Bible?

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Scoffers are known to poke fun at Scripture’s mention (in the King James Bible) of “unicorns”, accusing the Bible of being “unscientific”.(1),(2)  Such pseudo-science ridicule is readily refuted, however, even when it’s uncertain which beast is represented by the English word “unicorn”.

The scoffer’s ridicule of “unicorns” (in Scripture) relies upon this flawed syllogism:

ASSUMPTION A: If the Bible is perfectly true it would not treat mythical animals as if they really exist.

ASSUMPTION B: The Bible treats “unicorns”, which are mythical beasts, as if they really exist.

INFERRED CONCLUSION: Therefore the Bible can’t be perfectly true and credible.

With that sophism scoffers giddily dismiss the Bible’s perfection. Of course, the entire mockery rests upon a Straw-man Fallacy(3) because scoffers presuppose that the term “unicorn” is the core controversy—yet the real question is whether or not the underlying Hebrew noun (re’ēm) refers to a real-world animal.(4)

Assumption A contains the Uniformitarian Fallacy,(3) by assuming the Hebrew noun re’ēm must match some animal alive today. However, in light of the inescapable reality that some animal varieties are going extinct, there is no reason why re’ēm must refer to a beast existing today.

Assumption B contains the Bait-and-Switch Fallacy,(3) by assuming thhe mythological beast called a “unicorn”, that exists in fairy tales (and Hollywood cartoons), must equal the Hebrew noun re’ēm that is referred to 9 times within the Old Testament.

Yet reviewing the relevant Biblical contexts (see below) shows re’ēm was a horned beast, like a wild ox or maybe a rhino — neither of which you would try to domesticate!

Furthermore, skeptics sometimes add a corollary assumption to buttress their ridicule of Scripture’s “unicorns”—acting as if their challenge cannot be refuted unless and until Christians positively identify a real-world “unicorn” (i.e., what the Hebrew Bible calls re’ēm), presuming that any doubt about the re’ēm’s taxonomic identity invalidates the Bible’s trustworthiness.(4)

However, refuting the skeptic does not require that “unicorns” be identified with certainty; it is enough to show that plausible solutions exist, proving that “unicorns” need not refer to “mythical” beasts. In fact, more than one plausible candidate (for the “unicorn”) exists—or previously existed(2)—as shown below.

Could the “unicorn” be a rhinoceros, especially a one-horned variety?

Most modern readers don’t know that the word “unicorn” formerly referred to a one-horned Rhinoceros. Consider, however, this is the primary definition of “UNICORN” in the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s Dictionary:

UNICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.] 1. An animal with one horn; the Monoceros.  This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.(5)

The one-horned rhinoceros remains a plausible candidate for the horned beast that Moses (and other Hebrews) called re’ēm, of which there are living varieties:  Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) and Javan Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus).(6)

Could the “unicorn” be a wild horned bovine, like aurochs or bison?

The presumed ancestor of domesticated bovines (including cattle, water buffalo, yak, zebu) is the now-extinct aurochs.(2) One of its kind is the inherently wild bison (a/k/a “buffalo”).(7) These wild beasts both have two horns (see Psalm 22:21; Deuteronomy 33:17), are built to be powerful (Numbers 23:22), and are biologically comparable to domesticated bovines (Psalm 29:6; Isaiah 34:7).  Harnessing such dangerous bovines, to plow a farm field’s furrows, would be a reckless undertaking, for any foolish farmer who might try it (see Job 39:9-10).

So, what does this prove? First, the skeptic’s Uniformitarian Fallacy guts his criticism of Job 39:9 (and other Scriptures that refer to re’ēm).  Second, the skeptic’s insistence that the English term “unicorn”, as used in the AD1611 King James Bible, equate to a spiral-cone-horned horse, is a bait-and-switch-facilitated strawman challenge, because there are plausible candidate, among real-world animals, that could fit the identity of the Scriptural re’ēm.  Consequently, the scoffer’s caricature of Biblical “unicorns” is not a genuine impeachment of the Bible’s verity.

Aurochs-looking-like-Bison

REFERENCES

(1)The King James Bible uses the English word “unicorn” in 9 Scripture passages: Numbers 23:22 & 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalms 22:21 (v.22 in BH) & 29:16; Isaiah 34:7.

(2)Dr. Henry Morris, concluded that the “unicorn” (of Job 39:9) was a wild ox-like bovine, the aurochs, that became extinct: “The unicorn is supposedly a mythological animal; actually the creature referred to here is the extinct aurochs, or wild ox, a fierce animal that once inhabited this region. Many of the animals mentioned [in Job chapter 39], as well as other parts of the Old Testament, are of very uncertain identity, and various translators have tied them to a considerable diversity of modern animals. The probable reason for this uncertainty is that many of the animals, like the ‘unicorn’, are now extinct, because they could not long survive the drastically changed environments following the great Flood.” [Footnote to Job 39:9 in The New Defender’s Study Bible, page 822.]  Zoölogist George Cansdale concluded that re’ēm was the now-extinct aurochs. [George S. Cansdale, All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), page 82.]  The aurochs is depicted repeatedly on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, now relocated to the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

(3)Regarding logical fallacies, James J. S. Johnson, “Staying on Track Despite Deceptive Distractions”, Acts & Facts, 41(5):9-11 (May 2012) (re straw-man fallacy, posted at http://www.icr.org/article/staying-track-despite-deceptive-distractions/ );  “Bait and Switch: A Trick Used by Both Anglerfish and Evolutionists”,  Acts & Facts, 41(1):10-11 (January 2012) (re bait-and-switch fallacy), posted at  http://www.icr.org/article/bait-switch-trick-used-by-both-anglerfish  );  “Is the Present the ‘Key’ to the Past?” Acts & Facts, 43(6):19 (June 2014, posted at  http://www.icr.org/article/8165 ).

(4)A related inquiry is why Bible scholars, seeking to translate re’ēm into Greek, Latin, and English, used words like “unicorn” in their translations.  The Septuagint (“LXX”), a Greek translation of the Old Testament, translated re’ēm as monokerôs.  Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translated re’ēm as rinocerotis in Deuteronomy 33:17 and rinoceros in Job 39:9, and unicornes in Isaiah 34:7!  This indicates that at least some translators though that re’ēm was one-horned,  perhaps the one-horned rhinoceros.

(5)Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education; 1995 facsimile of Noah Webster’s 1st edition of 1828), unpaginated.

(6)See Eric Dinerstein, The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros (NY, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003).  Obviously the term “unicorn” is not a good fit for two-horned rhinos, such as the Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), and Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis).  But the Hebrew noun re’ēm, unlike the English word “unicorn”, does not require the beast to be one-horned, as is indicated by Deuteronomy 33:17 (which refers to unicorn “horns”, possibly denoting a two-horned rhino).  Some evolutionist paleontologists have expressed interesting (albeit forensically flawed) opinions about the ancestral rhino that they believe led to the “unicorns”.  [See Deng Tao, Wang ShiQi, & Hou SuKuan, “A Bizaree Tandem-horned Elasmothere Rhino from the Late Miocene of Northwestern China and the Origin of the True Elasmothere”, Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(15):1811-1817 (May 2013).]

(7)Another candidate is the one-horned Arabian oryx antelope, but its less-intimidating traits (compared to rhinos, bison, and aurochs) seem less likely to fit the Bible’s re’ēm.


rhino-1horned-closeup

Fake Weather Forecasting, by False Prophets

GlobalWarming-cartoon

Fake Weather Forecasting, by False Prophets

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

A team of climate “experts” have warned us that the ocean is rising, due to “global warming”, and will keep rising to almost 4 feet higher, almost as high as a hockey stick!

The Maryland Commission on Climate Change has predicted that the ocean will rise as much as 3.7 feet [higher] by the end of the century [i.e., A.D. 2100], with land erosion and invasive plant species contributing to sea-level rise.  Further, a 2013 assessment led by the Conservation Fund and Audubon Maryland-DC found [but we are not told how they found] that in time, almost all of Blackwater [National Wildlife Refuge, on Maryland’s Eastern Shore] will become, as if foreshadowed by its name, part of the black-blue water of the sea [i.e., Chesapeake Bay].

[Quoting Danielle Prieur, “Blackwater’s Future May Not Be So Dark After Marsh is Complete”, Chesapeake Bay Journal, 27(5):40 (July-August 2017), with emphasis added.]

BlackwaterNWR-marsh.Wikipedia-photo

BLACKWATER N.W.R. (Maryland’s Eastern Shore, next to Chesapeake Bay)

(Photo credit: Wikipedia / Ataraxy22)

So watch out! Be alarmed!  Be afraid!  Of course, there’s no need to fearfully “watch out” or “be alarmed” if the prognostications of these self-professed “climate prophets” are wrong.   [For a little humor on this topic, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eisr2eW4pXg .]

In short, fake science leads to fake weather forecasting, constituting a secular version of false prophets.  But how do we recognize a false prophet when we see (or hear, or read) one?

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.  (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

In days of old the nation Israel was visited, from time to time, by men who claimed to be “prophets” – some true and some false.  There were two quick ways to identify a self-proclaimed “prophet” as a fake: (1) if he opposed the true God by promoting idolatry (either directly, by endorsing an idolatrous substitute for the true God – or indirectly, by denigrating God’s Word in a way that effectively promotes an imaginary “God” to replace the real God Who reveals His messages via Scripture); (2) if his “prophetic” predictions proved to be wrong.

So the first test for identifying a “prophet”, as either genuine or fake, pertains to how that person treats the God of Scripture.  However, just using the Lord’s name is not enough  —-   many iniquity-workers (who called themselves “prophets”) will suffer a bad eternity despite their track-record for using the Lord’s name a lot!

Not everyone that saith unto Me, “Lord, Lord”, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? And in Thy name have cast out devils? And in Thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.   (Matthew 7:21-23)

Once a golden calf statue was used, soon after the Exodus, to infringe God’s holy name in a blasphemous promotion of Baal-worship idolatry, showing how mere usage of Biblical vocabulary words cannot convert idolatry to true worship.

Recall how Aaron sacrificed truth and dishonored the Lord when he led the rebellious Israelites to worship a golden calf6 that supposedly “evolved” while Moses was absent.7 Notice that Aaron labeled the “spontaneously-generated” golden calf “the LORD” and not “Baal” in order to excuse the idol’s inclusion into Israel’s religious practices. Yet a golden calf statue, whether called “Baal” or “the LORD,” is still a golden calf statue. A gold-ring-snouted pig is still a pig.

[Quoting JJSJ, “To Tell the Truth”, Acts & Facts, 38(2):24 (February 2009), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/tell-truth-danger-accommodating-darwinism-through-/ .]

In other words, just because the words “God” and “Jesus” are used is no guarantee that a religious message is Biblically true  —   its theological essence may display a message’s falsity.  Like humans, a message’s “outward appearance” may be deceiving, so it’s the “heart” that really matters (see 1st Samuel 16:7; 1st John 4:1-3).

The Holy Bible presents God as eternally triune, being revealed in human history by and through the Lord Jesus Christ (compare the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1, which identifies the Creator by a regular plural noun Whose action is described by a singular verb —  with Matthew 28:18-20; 1st John 5:7; 1st John 2:22-23; 2nd Peter 2:1; 2nd John 1:7-9).

Thus, any religious (or secular) “messenger”, who denies basic Trinitarian truth, is promoting idolatry, i.e., advertising a false “god” — doing what Deuteronomy 18:20 calls “speak[ing] in the name of other gods”.  Accordingly, any so-called “prophet” who announces a supposedly “divine” message in the name of a Unitarian “God” (e.g., the “God” of Arians, Moslems, “Enlightenment” Unitarians, Watchtower Society Jehovah’s Witnesses, anti-Messianic Jews, etc.) is automatically self-exposed as a false prophet.  (Actually, an extension of this “trying-the-spirits” test is to compare a “prophetic” message to the inerrant content that God has revealed in His holy written  Word  —  see Isaiah 8:20.)

But Global Warming hysteria-hype is especially relevant to the second test, for exposing false prophets; the second test involves watching to see if a short-term prediction occurs as prophesied.  A short-term prophecy is one that must be fulfilled – or must fail – within a short amount of time. An example follows.

When I was a high school senior, I had a classmate who (notwithstanding the cessationist import of Ephesians 2:20 & 1st Corinthians 13:8-10) claimed to have the “gift of prophecy”! That classmate, through church connections, knew a married couple, the husband of which was serving (away from home) in the U.S. military service.  Having learned (through a source many did not know that he had access to) that the military man was supposed to return home soon (on a particular weekend), on leave, this faker “prophesied” about how the military man would soon return home, confirming the hopes and expectations of the soldier’s wife (who did not know how this faker had learned of the scheduled leave).  But, to the faker’s discredit, the military decision-makers changed the schedule(!), so the leave was rescinded and the military man did not return home to visit his wife.  This produced more than a cancellation of military leave; it embarrassingly cancelled the faker’s claim of having “prophet” status.

In other words, the demonstrated failure of the short-term prophecy proved that the prognosticator was phony, not a true prophet of God.  After that occurred, in accordance with Deuteronomy 18:22, no one feared the predictions of that faker.

GlobalWarming-ChurchofClimatology.AlGore-cartoon

But what about the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, as well as other Global Warming alarmists (who promote Al Gore’s convenient falsehoods), who predict that Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge – along with the Chesapeake Bay (and ocean surface in general) – may rise higher, by almost 4 feet?   (As if 4 feet higher would be a global calamity.)

GlobalWarming.HotAir-Gore

Can the failure of this secular “prophecy” be used to discredit these climate-crisis prognosticators? (Remember all the fear about losing “the ozone layer”?  Ozone hype-hypochondriacs are strangely silent nowadays.)

BlackwaterNWR-coastwaters-marsh.Wikipedia

Blackwater N.W.R. marshy coasts

(photo credit: Wikipedia / Jcantroot)

In other words, will the Global Warming alarmists’ fake science be exposed and shamed, so that their fake weather-forecasting is likewise shamed, exposing this media-peddled brouhaha as just another “power-and-money-grab” fakery?

No. Because the predictions of the Global Warming bluffers are not short-term predictions that are verified or falsified within a short timeframe.

Rather, this flamboyant weather-forecasting is pegged to the far future  —  the next century (i.e., A.D. 2100), when all these “prophets” (and a lot of the rest of us) are already dead.   Fake science, used for fake weather-forecasting  —  what a scam!


ChickenLittle-GlobalWarming.pic

CONCRETE PROOF THAT OYSTERS ARE RESOURCEFUL HOMESTEADERS, FITTED TO FILL DIVERSE HABITATS

CONCRETE PROOF THAT OYSTERS ARE RESOURCEFUL HOMESTEADERS, FITTED TO FILL DIVERSE HABITATS

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.   (Genesis 1:21-22)

ChesapeakeBay-Oysters.Emaze

Chesapeake Bay oysters   (photo credit: Emaze.com)

 Chesapeake Bay oysters are ecologically resourceful, especially when it comes to homesteading underwater – and we should not be surprised.

But why? God prioritized animals, all over the world, to “be fruitful”, to “multiply”, and to “fill the earth”.

God chose to fill the earth with different kinds of life. All over the world, we see His providence demonstrated in ecological systems. Different creatures live in a variety of habitats, interacting with one another and a mix of geophysical factors—like rain, rocks, soil, wind, and sunlight.

[Quoting James J. S. Johnson, “God Fitted Habitats for Biodiversity”, ACTS & FACTS, 42(3):10-12 (March 2013).]

Because God loves variety, the earth itself has a diversity of habitats that can provide niches for animals to live in.

Accordingly, God “fitted” (i.e., designed and bioengineered) the internal programming of diverse animals to creatively adjust to miscellaneous habitats. In other words, diverse animals are “fitted to fill” different geophysical environments, which are themselves dominated by different types of plants, and the results are interactive and changing communities of lifeforms, adjusted to living in ecologically diverse “neighborhoods”.

ChesapeakeBay-Oyster-bed.ChesapeakeBayFndtn

Chesapeake Bay oyster-bed   (photo credit: Chesapeake Bay Foundation)

To illustrate, check out what is happening with Chesapeake Bay oysters, especially those which are “homesteading” on artificial “reef” platform-beds.

An unremarkable thing happened in a remarkable way during the recently ended oyster season in the Chesapeake Bay. Some Virginia watermen harvested bivalves from public oyster grounds in the Rappahannock River. There’s nothing unusual about that, of course, but these shellfish had settled as baby “spat” and grown to harvestable size on a thick bed of gravel-sized stones that had been put on the river bottom to provide an unconventional home for them.

Typically, shells of other oysters are the natural landing pads for recently hatched bivalve larvae, which need to attach to something hard as they begin sedentary lives of filtering algae from the water. But the Chesapeake is running short on [bivalve] shells; there aren’t enough to go around to sustain the traditional wild [oyster or clam] fishery — to say nothing of the growing aquaculture industry and an ambitious effort to restore the Bay’s depleted oyster [and clam] population.

Some watermen, particularly those in Maryland, remain leery of using anything other than oyster shells to provide habitat for bivalves.

But the shell squeeze is prompting some oyster growers and fishery managers to try alternative “substrate,” the hard [platform-like] material on which baby bivalves live and grow. Working with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, W. E. Kellum Seafood, one of the state’s oldest and largest oyster businesses, has in the last few years tested the suitability of crushed concrete from a demolished bridge and ground-down stones taken from a dam on the James River.

“This past season, the oysters we harvested were from 2-year-old granite we planted,” said Tommy Kellum, the company president. “That worked extremely well. We got a terrific spat set on it, and it grew well.”

In the right conditions, oysters will settle and grow on practically any hard surface, not just other oyster shells. Bivalves can be found clinging to wooden docks, concrete bridge piers and riprap, the big granite rocks lining the shore to prevent erosion.

[Quoting Timothy B. Wheeler, “Oysters Making Themselves at Home on Reefs with Alternative Substrate”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 27(4):12 (June 2017).]

Does that mean that artificial oysterbed planting is “better” than the “natural” habit these bivalves have, of attaching themselves to oyster shells produced by prior generations?

Happy-Oyster-Reefs-chart.NatureConservancy

Probably not, but (as Francis Schaeffer repeatedly reminded us) we live in a “fallen world”  — so we need to “make the best of what we have”, in order to be good stewards of God’s creation.  And that stewardship can apply to oyster-bed aquaculture resourcefulness.  (Just as careful ranchers can raise healthy cattle or sheep, careful aquaculture “farmers” can raise healthy bivalves.)

Some watermen, particularly those in Maryland, remain leery of using anything other than oyster shells to provide habitat for bivalves. Maryland watermen and their supporters have protested the use of crushed granite, fossil shell from Florida and clam shells from New Jersey in oyster restoration projects . . . [and their] protests landed on sympathetic ears at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, which blocked the further use of such materials in the Tred Avon [River, a tributary of the Choptank River, which is the Chesapeake Bay’s largest tributary on the Delmarva Peninsula]. The watermen argued that the rocks interfere with crabbing and fishing. Based on their experience, they say, oysters will not settle and grow nearly as well on substitute materials as they will on shells. Some also noted that the Florida fossil shell used in Harris Creek and the Little Choptank was full of water-fouling silt. “I think you should use the natural stuff that the good Lord put there,” said Ron Fithian, a Kent County commissioner and former waterman who is a member of Maryland’s Oyster Advisory Commission. “Nothing works better, and they shouldn’t substitute anything, especially stone. …You don’t get the concentration of spat on stones you do on oyster shell.”

Scientists and other proponents of the rock and concrete alternatives acknowledge that oyster shells are optimal, but they insist there’s just not enough fresh shell to go around — thanks to the decades-long slump in the oyster industry, which rebounded a bit several years ago. To make up for the shortage of fresh shells from harvested oysters, many watermen are pressing for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to permit the [Maryland Department of Natural Resources] to dredge 5 million bushels of fossil shell from an inactive oyster reef near the mouth of the Patapsco River called Man O’War Shoal. The proposal is opposed, though, by conservationists, recreational fishermen and even some watermen, who fear dredging up the old shell will ruin the shoal’s value as habitat for striped bass and other species. . . . [Balancing an ecosystem is tricky, of course – it’s really hard to please everybody!] Watermen have also pushed for the state to resume the taxpayer-subsidized “shell repletion” program it ran from the early 1960s until 2006, planting shell on the bottom and “seeding” it with juvenile oysters transplanted from areas getting good natural spat set.

[Quoting Timothy B. Wheeler, “Oysters Making Themselves at Home on Reefs with Alternative Substrate”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 27(4):12 (June 2017), with emphases added.]

Oyster-restoration-recycling-shells.PBS

Scattering oyster shells, for reuse by oyster larvae (photo credit: PBS)

Ironically, the concrete and gravel “reef” platform-beds are working out quite well, which proves the resourcefulness of the juvenile oysters that attach there.

“Just about anything that is hard would work,” . . . said [said Andrew Button, head of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s shellfish conservation and replenishment department]. “Everything, from shredded tires to ‘recycled bathroom fixtures’, has been tried, with some success, by someone at some point.” Watermen and others have expressed concern that concrete from roads and other demolished structures might be contaminated with oil and other hazardous substances, which could be picked up by oysters and other marine life.

But in one recent study, Morgan State University researchers found no cause for concern. The Maryland State Highway Administration, looking for alternatives to landfilling old pavement, contracted with Morgan a few years ago to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using it in building oyster reefs. Morgan scientists placed chunks of recycled concrete aggregate in tanks of Bay water at the university’s Patuxent Environmental & Aquatic Research Laboratory in Calvert County. They compared oyster spat survival on both concrete and shells and found no difference. They also tested for chemicals that might leach into the water — and subjected it to even more rigorous analysis with a mass spectrometer. “There was less [pollution] in it than the EPA required of drinking water — orders of magnitude less,” said Kelton Clark, director of the Patuxent lab.

The researchers also set up demonstration reefs using the recycled highway concrete in two locations with different water salinity — one in the Patuxent River near the laboratory and the other in Fishing Bay on the Eastern Shore — to see if oysters on rubble would be any more vulnerable to predators.

Again, no difference. There was one test that the highway debris flunked, when compared to shells: the hand-tonging test. Clark said researchers invited a hand-tonger to try harvesting the oysters growing on the concrete. The fist-sized chunks of rubble proved too heavy to lift using the tongs.

But for building oyster habitat in sanctuaries not open to harvest, Clark said, it’s just as good as the scarce shell. “It may not be acceptable to you or me, but the Chesapeake Bay doesn’t care what we like,” Clark said. “There’s no scientific reason not to use this material.”

In another study, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the University of Maryland teamed up to see how alternative substrate performs in the Bay. In 2011, the Corps built seven reefs out of granite in the Cook Point sanctuary in the Choptank River, where the bottom consisted of sand, an area of flat shell and some large mounds of shells. The granite reefs placed nearby ranged in height from 1–3 feet off the bottom; some were covered with a layer of shells, while others were not. The artificial reefs were planted with oyster spat produced by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science hatchery at Horn Point. After three years, UM researchers analyzed the growth, survival and reproduction of the oyster populations in the area, and also checked for other organisms living on or around the reefs. They found more oysters on reefs made of both granite and shell than on those built of granite only, but both types had relatively healthy densities, averaging 91 oysters per square meter and 49 oysters per square meter, respectively. The granite-only reefs did have thicker populations of organisms such as anemones, which researchers suggested could be competing with oysters for space on the rocks.

Most of the artificial reefs built in Harris Creek and the Little Choptank River as part of those sanctuary restoration projects are too new yet to evaluate their performance as hosts for oysters, but preliminary analysis of reefs finished three years ago in Harris Creek shows that those with a stone base have nearly three times the density of oysters, on average, as those with a base made up of clam shells. All were planted with spat on shell produced by the UM hatchery.

Scientists say the shape and size of the materials used can matter in determining how well oyster spat settle and survive on artificial reefs. The granite stones used to build reefs in Harris Creek, for instance, have more than three times as much surface area as do the reefs made of clam shells. That’s important, according to Jay Lazar, field operations coordinator for NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay office, because it gives oyster spat more places to latch onto as they settle to the bottom. The spaces between rocks also offer more protection from predators.

[Quoting Timothy B. Wheeler, “Oysters Making Themselves at Home on Reefs with Alternative Substrate”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 27(4):13 (June 2017).]

This successful conservation aquaculture practice did not “work out” by random accidents. Rather, a lot of careful thinking was necessarily involved, especially God’s creative thoughts (and deeds) that provided both humans and oysters with multi-generational life and abilities needed to live their respective life cycles – even down to the super-small level of biochemical details that include interactive nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, various RNAs, and the teleological functioning of gazillions of highly specialized protein molecules.

Who devised all of that to work?

The necessary details – of both human life and oyster life – required God to think through a lot of specifications, which themselves represent bioengineering programming to achieve God’s intended purposes (for humans and oysters).

Man-made items are constructed following directions called plans and specifications. Specifications are a unique kind of writing designed to convey intent. They are written instructions that set advance constraints on precisely what, how, and when particular materials will be used. Plans show geometric details of where materials are placed (though there is overlap between the two). Together, they must be detailed and selective enough to accurately and unambiguously communicate intended fabrication information to obtain all the product’s features.

Writing specifications and drawing plans can be difficult work. Designers are forced to initially build the project in their minds. They must visualize numerous details, and then clearly represent everything in that mental picture in words and drawings–a daunting task at any time, but especially for situations where no prototype even exists.

It is important to highlight two points about specifications. First, they are as close of a representation of the designer’s thoughts as possible–but they are not the thoughts themselves. Thoughts exist independently of the paper or programs which convey them. Second, when plans or specifications exist for something, they are–without exception–a sign of conscious design. Why? They reveal an intentional state that is characteristically restrictive. It selects in advance particular attributes for an intended purpose–which is the exact opposite of blind natural processes that yield random, ill-defined, piecemeal conglomerations of whatever is available.

So the secret to great architecture [or to building great human beings, or to building great Chesapeake Bay oysters!] is not in the drawings, but in the mind of the architect [i.e., the mind who creates the ideas about what should be built].

When evolutionary biologists determine the structure or sequence of DNA, they believe they uncover the secret of life.2 Disregarding the fact that information is immaterial, they fixate on the material of DNA. But they are incorrect. Functioning just like specifications, DNA is manipulated by specialized proteins that enable it to transfer, transcribe, store, and recall information for building a living thing–but it is not the information.

The real secret of life is the [purposeful] information.

[Quoting Randy J. Guliuzza, “Natural Selection is Not ‘Nature’s Design Process’”, ACTS & FACTS, 39(6):10-11 (June 2010).]

In other words, by promoting both conservation and aquaculture, human experts are showing resourcefulness, by facilitating juvenile oysters to display their own resourcefulness! And both kinds of resourcefulness interactively display God’s own resourceful imagination – because it was God Who gave resourceful thinking to humans, and it was God Who preprogrammed and bioengineered resourceful instincts into homesteading oysters.

Oyster-restoration-substrate.JoeReiger-workshop

(PowerPoint slide credit: Joe Reiger’s Oyster Restoration Workshop)

So, what is the bottom line on this? God fitted oysters to fill many underwater habitats, not just oysterbed reefs composed of preëxisting oyster shells.

><> JJSJ   profjjsj@aol.com

 

Black-tailed Jackrabbit: Big Ears are Good for Living in Hot Deserts!

Black-tailed Jackrabbit:  Big Ears are Good for Living in Hot Deserts!

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.   (James 1:11)

The sun can provide a burning heat, especially in a hot desert — such as the 3 hot deserts located in America’s Southwest  —  the Sonoran Desert, the Mojave Desert, and the Chihuahuan Desert (the last of which Big Bend National Park is part of).  Yet the Black-tailed Jackrabbit, famous for its gargantuan ears, lives in all of those deserts quite nicely.   So what about those huge ears?  Do they help it to live in hot deserts?

Blacktailed-Jackrabbit-BigBendNP.FredWasmer.jpg

BLACK-TAILED  JACKRABBIT:   El Paso, Texas:  Big Bend Nat’l Park  

Yes!  The jumbo-sized ears of the jackrabbit are not primarily for hearing desert noises, although the rabbits’ ears are used to hear with, of course.  Rather, the most critical importance of having huge (and relatively thin) ears, for the Black-tailed Jackrabbit, is how it providentially equips him (or her) with a heat-shedding advantage  —  a very practical trait for such desert-dwelling lagomorphs.  In short, thanks to God’s bioengineering wisdom, the Black-tailed Jackrabbit controls its body temperature by radiating out excess heat over the relatively large surface areas of its ears!

 

“These large, floppy-eared rabbits inhabit not only the deserts of the [American] southwest, but also large reaches of midwestern prairie. At one time it was supposed that the large ears were used to enhance their hearing ability, but it has been found that their ears perform a far more important function. Laboratory investigations on heat-stressed jackrabbits have indicated that the blood leaving the ear is significantly cooler than the blood entering the ear. During heat stress, a jackrabbit can increase ear blood flow to very high levels through expanded blood vessels. The research indicates that the large, nearly bare ears serve as efficient heat radiators! Thus, even in mid-day heat, this animal may sit in the shade of a bush with its ears erect, and radiate sufficient heat toward the cool portion of the sky (away from the sun) to prevent it from reaching uncomfortable temperatures. Studies on a number of large mammals possessing permanent horns with high blood circulation, have shown that these structures also are used for heat regulation.” [Quoting John Meyer & Kenneth Cumming, “Biology of Grand Canyon”, in GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE (Santee, CA: ICR, 1994), pages 158-159.]

Thankfully, those gigantic ears really take the heat off those desert jackrabbits!   ><> JJSJ


PHOTO CREDITS:

featured image of standing Black-tailed Jackrabbit: Pinterest

Black-tailed Jackrabbit at Big Bend Nat’l Park:  Fred Wasmer

Blacktailed-Jackrabbit-HugeEars.Pinterest