How a Snake Can Help Us to Understand the Promise of John 3:16


How a Snake Can Help Us to Understand the Promise of John 3:16

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

And Moses made a serpent of copper, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of copper, he lived.   (Numbers 21:9)

Consider the unusual role that serpents have in God’s creation. The first serpent specifically mentioned in the Bible is the one that Satan used, as his mask, for talking with Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden.  Prior to the Garden of Eden event serpents could walk on legs, but afterwards – as part of the curse God imposed as consequences for that terrible event – serpents were limited to crawling on their bellies (Genesis 3).

Did serpents, and other animals, routinely talk to humans in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall? Does the fact that Balaam’s donkey was enabled to talk to Balaam, later in history (after the Jews exited Egypt under Moses’s leadership), an indication that animals were originally able to converse with humans, but now are not?  Scripture does not explicitly tell us the answer, one way or the other.  Meanwhile, serpents – what we call snakes cannot now walk on legs, and they are a continuing reminder of what happened in the Garden of Eden (and the seriousness of sin), thousands of years ago.

Apart from that unusual role that one serpent once had, in the Garden of Eden, we see that snakes are reptiles that God created, cold-blooded (“ectothermic”) predators, capable of great subtlety and viciousness.

Earth has many kinds of snakes today, from huge snakes, like pythons of the Amazon River rainforest, to small “harmless” Rough-Earth Snakes that live mostly underground (unless heavy rains flush them out of the topsoil).

The King Cobra (a/k/a “hamadryad” snakes) are the world’s longest venomous snake, meaning that this snake puts out a poisonous toxin (which is squired form openings in its fangs) when it bites a victim.  Humans easily die of cobra bites, unless a counteracting anti-venom remedy is immediately applied.  As the victim succumbs to the venom’s destructiveness the snake swallows the victims, if the victim is small enough for the cobra to swallow it. The venom is mostly a mix of painful neurotoxins that destroy the central nervous system, ruining vision, balance, alertness, and the brain’s control of the ability to breathe – quite a picture of how sin ruins, cripples, incapacitates, and can ultimately destroy the life of a human, if a sufficient remedy to the venomous snakebite is not timely applied.

For human sin, however, there is only one efficacious remedy, the substitutionary death of the Lord  Jesus Christ, Who died on the cross for our sins (i.e., receiving punishment as our substitute  —  see Romans 5:8) – if, as, and when a human accepts this wonderful fact he (or she) receives God’s saving grace, the antidote for sin’s consequences.

The Bible’s first prophecy of Jesus, as the sin-defeating Messiah, was given in Genesis 3:15, when God was addressing the serpent in Eden:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he [i.e., Woman’s seed = Jesus] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This was fulfilled by Christ when He was crucified, because the Lord Jesus’s substitutionary death on the cross actually defeated the power of both sin and death, as is explained by Paul in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.

Interestingly, the comparison that Jesus Himself used, when explaining eternal life to Nicodemus, referred back to an incident involving snakes: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world [literally “like this God loved the world”, i.e., like what occurred in the wilderness with the snakebites and the miraculous remedy that God provided, that involved a copper snake on a pole, combined with snake-bit Israelites believing God’s promise of a cure if they looked at the pole], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:14-16) .  That strange event, which Jesus referred to, is reported in Numbers 21:4-9, which says:

And they [i.e., the Israelites] journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.  And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.  

And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.

And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

And Moses made a serpent of copper, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of copper, he lived.

In other words, if we think of Jesus Christ dying on the cross (crucified for our sins) as our substitute, as we believe God’s promise (in John 3:16) that we will be graciously cured of our sin’s consequences as a miraculous gift He generously gives us due to Christ being our Savior   –   we too receive God-given life, but not just receiving an extension of our earthly life (cured of earthly snakebites), but rather receiving the forever-permanent gift of eternal life (forgiven all our sins!).

So, when you think of the wonderful promise of John 3:16, remember that John 3:16 refers back to John 3:14-15, which then looks back to the snake incident reported in Numbers 21:4-9.  So how is the Lord Jesus Christ, when He was on the cross, comparable to the copper snake-on-a-pole that Moses erected (Numbers 21:4-9), as part of God’s solution to the snakebite crisis in the wilderness?   Christ accepted the curse and punishment of our sin, and was nailed to a pole-like cross, as He exchanged our sin for His own righteousness:

For He [God the Father] hath made Him [Christ Jesus] to be sin for us [human sinners], Who knew no sin [i.e., Christ Himself was personally sinless in His humanity]; that we [human sinners] might be made the righteousness of God in Him [i.e., in Christ]. (2nd Corinthians 5:21)

So snakes should remind us of God’s gracious redemption in Christ, to save us humans from the consequences of our sin, and we should be mindful that God’s first promised this redemption in Genesis 3:15, and it was later explained by the Savior Himself, in John 3:14-15 (which alludes to Numbers 21:4-9).





How Insects and Spiders Escape Freezing to Death in Winter, Showing How Providential Bioengineering Equips Bugs for Phenological Success

Dr. James J. S. Johnson


While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.   (Genesis 8:22)

During torrid July days you might miss winter weather.(1) However, in higher latitudes (such as those in the cold north of Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, Siberia, Alaska, etc.), it’s winter weather that needs mitigation. Brrrrr!  

Winter-wonderland bugs (i.e., arctic insects and arachnids) need to be equipped with bioengineering adaptabilities, programmed to select coping responses to physiological-sensor-tracked climate condition changes, because they are cold-blooded, so failure to self-adjust to freezing weather means freezing to death!

So how can insects and arachnids withstand frigid forces of frost and freezing?(2)

With careful bioengineering (and environmental tracking software programming), God has providentially prepared multi-legged creepy critters to use different solutions to the same problem.


Frozen Spider   [photo credit:  Stanislav Snall ]

Why is winter weather such a challenge, to “bugs” (cold-blooded insects and arachnids) whom God has directed to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth”?

Many climatic features of arctic regions limit the ways in which insects [and arachnids] can live. …  All [arctic] species experience severe cold in winter … [and] the presence of permafrost everywhere except in deep lakes and in the substrates of some running waters means that unfrozen habitats are not available to most species, and even individuals buried in substrates experience prolonged temperatures of about -20OC in the high Arctic [cite omitted].  Nevertheless, constant darkness in winter without solar heating or marked diel [i.e., 24-hour] cycles means that temperatures, though severe, are somewhat less variable than in temperate regions.   The winter is very long. Species sealed in ice will not be exposed to the air again for many months, and might require the ability to respire anaerobically as temperatures rise before the ice melts.

Summer is short and cool … [so the] mean frost-free season is very short, only 9 days [in the high Arctic], so that cold-hardiness is required even during the warmest summer period. This short season starts slowly as habitats warm up.  Wet habitats and low-lying areas where snow has accumulated through drifting in winter warm up especially slowly.   Many potential resources of food are in short supply in arctic regions [cite omitted], which makes insect [and arachnid] development during the short summer season even more difficult.

Constraints on development imposed by limited resources for food, heat, [sunlight] and time are offset by the fact that the temperature of habitats, especially at the ground surface and in shallow waters where most insects [and arachnids] live, can be greatly increased by solar heat. Therefore, the extent of summer cloud cover is very important.  Cloud cover varies especially according to proximity to the sea, both on a local scale and according to the size of regional land masses, because the sea contributes moisture to the air when it is ice-free in summer.

Arctic regions are very dry, and often have been referred to as polar desert. Only a few centimetres of rain fall each year in the high Arctic … [so such] dryness may hinder insect development, and interacts with the effects of temperature.(3)

Five problem-solving strategies, for how bugs (i.e., various insects and arachnids, including spiders) to avoid being frozen to death, follow.

 Options # 1  &  # 2: 


[ chart credit: Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation ]

Live Where It Never Freezes, or Migrate to Avoid Freezing

The easiest survive-the-cold strategy is to live, as jungle bugs do, where it never gets cold enough to freeze. Another avoidance strategy is seasonal migration, illustrated by Monarch Butterflies, which migrate southward for overwintering, then return when warmer spring weather returns.(4)

It should be noticed, however, that Monarch butterflies use a multi-generational approach to their complete migratory cycle —  one generation flies south (e.g., form Canada or America to Mexico), yet it takes more than one generation to complete the reverse migration back north, before the autumn winds are used for flying south again:

Butterflies look so delicate as they flitter from flower to flower. And yet, they are capable of migrating incredibly long distances. The monarch, for example, migrates between Canada and Mexico, covering distances of up to 4,800 kilometers, riding a combination of columns of rising air, called thermals, and air currents to travel around 80 to 160 kilometers per day. No single monarch makes this entire journey, though. The round trip is done by a succession of as many as five generations of butterflies.(5)

However, there is a resilient butterfly, whom God has painted with similar wing colors (yet a different pattern of those orange, black, and white colors), the Painted Lady.  This hardy-yet-dainty butterfly truly exhibits marathon stamina.

PaintedLadyButterfly-migration.MelindaFrydenlund[Image credit: Melinda Frydenlund]

Painted ladies are found throughout much of the world, except for South America and Australia. They’ve been seen as far north as Svalbard, Norway, and nearly as far south as Antarctica.   The butterflies are known to migrate, particularly between Europe and Africa, but their route has been largely unknown. Scientists had tracked the butterflies to northern Africa (the region known as the Maghreb), but there have been hints that they may fly across the Sahara. Two new studies back up this claim.(5)


[ PAINTED LADY (Vanessa cardui) on Purple Coneflower / Wikipedia image ]

Migrating from Norway, south to Africa? Now that is marathon migration!

Option # 3:

[ Subterranean Termites   [photo credit: ]

Hibernation-like Freeze Avoidance

Some non-migratory social insects, including ants and termites, survive winter by hunkering down (called “diapause”, similar to hibernation) in underground colonies located below the frost line. There they stay warm, feeding on food they stored earlier.(6)  Diapause is also useful for slowing down metabolic processes till the time of year when full-blown metabolism is optimized due to food availability in a given habitat.  (No need to be voraciously hungry when the local food supplies are slim pickin’s!)

In fact, building a winter cocoon for temperature insulation, is functionally equivalent to modifying a micro-habitat, to avoid outside freezing temperatures, as is done by some chironomid midges (a/k/a “lake flies”).(3) Winter cocoons shelter the indwelling larvae from injury from icy weather conditions.

Some alpine beetles are known to use diapause (a hibernation-like semi-dormant state of slowed-down metabolism), to slow down the “normal” energy-demanding activities of growth and development, during winter.  Ordinary oxidative metabolism is suppressed, being temporarily replaced by anaerobic metabolism processes, facilitating cryoprotectant (i.e., protection-against-cold) systems within the beetles, regulating their development to avoid vulnerability to continued super-cold conditions.(3)

Of course, there are two phenological scenarios for synching life-cycle developments with the 4 seasons: (1) bugs that live at least a full year before reproducing the next generation; and (2) bugs that live less than a full year before reproducing.(3) The former category require bioengineering design to enable them to survive all of their habitat’s seasons, but the latter category can be phenologically fitted to the 4 seasons by life stages, so that the life stages are synched to survive the weather of that stage’s time of year.  This option is illustrated by the Monarch Butterfly’s multi-generation migration.

Options # 4  &  # 5:  

Carabid-GroundBeetle.MarkEising-photoCarabid Ground Beetle  /  photo credit:  Mark Eising

Super-cooling “Antifreeze” and/or Freeze Tolerance

Another amazing option for many insects and spiders, for surviving freezing weather, is safeguarding hemolymph [i.e., bug “blood”] with “antifreeze” biochemicals. (Obviously, this requires bug sensors detecting temperatures.)

God designed and built some bugs with physiologies that lower the hemolymph’s freezing point, using thermal hysteresis proteins (i.e., “antifreeze” proteins), in conjunction with sugar polymers (such as xylomannan) and/or glycerol.(7),(8)

Insects survive low temperatures either by keeping their body fluids liquid below their ordinary freezing point (freeze avoidance), or by surviving the formation of ice in their tissues (freeze tolerance)….   For species inhabiting in temperate and colder climates, the ability to supercool is undoubtedly the most important component of the overwintering strategy. At temperatures below 0OC, most insect species remain unfrozen because they supercool.  Cold-hardiness can be measured by indices such as supercooling points (SCP), the temperature at which spontaneous freezing occurs [cite omitted].    Freeze-avoiding insects keep their body fluids liquid by removing ice nucleators that initiate ice formation, synthesizing antifreeze proteins to reduce the nucleation potential of seed crystals, and accumulating sugars and polyols, such as glycerol or trehalose, which also lower the crystallization temperature (defined as its super-cooling point) and stabilize membranes at low temperatures [cite omitted].(9)

Most bugs that survive freezing temperatures are actually using biochemical “antifreeze” to supercool their hemolymph, but some bugs actually tolerate some amount of freezing.(7),(8),(9),(10)

Arthropods that live in sub-zero temperatures for at least part of the year survive by one of two physiological and biochemical responses.   At least for insects, one way is tolerance of ice crystal formation in their bodies (freeze tolerance), and the other is avoidance of ice crystal formation (freeze avoidance).   Ice crystal formation is avoided by super-cooling, which depresses the freezing point. … [facilitated by] accumulation of polyol compounds in the hemolymph (thus increasing the osmotic pressure), dehydration (also increasing osmotic pressure), synthesis of thermal-hysteresis protein, or evacuation or masking of ice-nucleation factors in the gut.(8)

Freeze-tolerant insects, such as arctic beetles, appear to employ physiologies that manipulate intracellular ice-nucleating agents (and apply protein-stabilizing cryoprotectant substances), to limit hemolymph ice crystal formation to extracellular compartments, preventing intracellular crystallization.(7),(10)

Some Bugs are “Fitted to Fill” Arctic Habitats that Seasonally Freeze

Now how would beetles accidently “evolve” these magnificent adaptabilities, phenologically indexed to Earth’s annual temperature and photoperiodicity rhythms?  With universal entropy fighting against their chances of survival, as well as every detail of their biochemistry, they need much more than “luck”!(11)

Hit-or-miss mutations, accidently “emerging” in insect (or spider) genomes, cannot biochemically code bio-informational “software” and physiological “hardware” of bug bodies, to so successfully fill super-cold habitats!

These bugs need life-saving temperature detectors to trigger built-in selective logic, that switches (on or off) physiological responses, that are focally targeted to avoid allowing the bugs to freeze to death!  Due to the cold logic of biochemistry, these super-cool critters can’t be lucky products of evolutionary “genes-in-magic”.

Rather, these super-cool bugs showcase God’s providential “programmed-to-fill” bioengineering!


(1)Contentment, as seasons and weather change, can be a challenge (Philippians 4:11). After the Flood, God promised that Earth would experience predictable seasonal weather cycles, including recurring cold weather (Genesis 8:22).

(2)Some say that winter frost or icy freezes kill off the bugs—yet the bugs always return in spring, so obviously they are surviving winter somehow!

(3)H. V. Danks, Olga Kukal, & R. A. Ring, “Insect Cold-Hardiness: Insights from the Arctic”, Arctic, 47(4):391-404 (December 1994), quotation from page 392.

(4)Moody Science Institute, “Animal Kingdom: Great Are Thy Works” (The Wonders of Creation DVD series, vol. 2, 1993).

(5) Sarah Zielinski, “Painted Lady Butterflies’ Migration May Take Them Across the Sahara”, Science News, October 12th, 2016 ( ). See also Gerard Talavera & Roger Vila, “Discovery of Mass Migration and Breeding of the Painted Lady Butterfly Vanessa cardui in the Sub-sahara:  the Europe—Africa Migration Revisited”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 20(2):274-285 (February 2017), posted at (“The distribution range of V. cardui is much wider than that of the monarch. It is a virtually cosmopolitan species that can be found everywhere except most of South America and Australia. Thus, Vanessa cardui has one of the largest distributional ranges among terrestrial animals that undertake large-scale migratory movements [cite omitted]. Occasional records exist for extremely cold localities, as for example, near the Arctic polar circle in Svalbard, Norway [cited omitted] and close to the Antarctic … [cite omitted].”).

(6)Proverbs 30:25 (“ants … prepare their food in the summer”). See also Brian J. Cabrera & Shripat T. Kamble, “Effects of Decreasing Thermophotoperiod on the Eastern Subterranean Termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)”, Environmental Entomology, 30(2):166-171 (2001); (“[S]uccessfully overwintering R. flavipes [termite] colonies retreat to soil depths where freezing temperatures are not encountered.”)

(7)Lauritz Sømme, Invertebrates in Hot and Cold Arid Environments (Springer, 1995), 194-213. Regarding xylomannan’s role, in Alaska’s flat bark beetle, see Ned Rozell “Alaska Beetle Survive ‘Unearthly’ Temperatures”, Geophysical Institute, article # 2104 (University of Alaska Fairbanks, March 1, 2012).

(8)Jonathan Murphy, Tatiana Rossolimo, & Sina Ada, “Cold-hardiness in the Wolf Spider Pardosa groenlandica (Thorell) with Respect to Thermal Limits and Dehydration”, Journal of Arachnology, 36:213-215 (2008), omitting inline cites.

(9)Angela Ploomi, Irja Kivimägi, Eha Kruus, Ivar Sibul, Katrin Jõgar, Külli Hiiesaar, & Luule Metspalu, “Seasonal Cold Adaptation Dynamics of Some Carabid Beetle Species: Carabus granulatus, Pterostichus oblongopunctatus, and Platynus assimilis”, Forestry Studies [Metsanduslikud Uurimused], 57: 90-96 (2012), quotation from page 90.  [The lead co-author, Angela Ploomi, of Estonian University of Life Sciences (in Tartu), is reachable at ]

(10)Karl Erik Zachariassen & Harold T. Hammel, Nucleating Agents in the Haemolymph of Insects Tolerant to Freezing, Nature, 262:285-287 (July 22, 1976).

(11)James J. S. Johnson, “Infinite Time Won’t Rescue Evolution”, Acts & Facts, 47(6):21 (June 2018), posted at .                                                     

><> JJSJ

[No Scandinavian or other Arctic-region insects or bugs were harmed during this study.]


How did Life Originate? Why am I Alive?


 How did Life Originate?  Why am I alive?

Dr. James J. S. Johnson


Life, as we know it (human, or horse, or hadrosaur) can only come from preexisting life.  Life  —  whether human, animal, or anything else  —  is so complicated (just ask a few hemoglobin, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and RNA molecules!),   it cannot “invent itself” by random accidents, especially within a physical universe that is governed by the inescapable, ubiquitous law of entropy (a/k/a the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

In other words, due to universal entropy, luck plus infinite time never arrive at any form of “life”  —  see “Infinite Time Won’t Rescue Evolution:  Biochemical Entropy Ink Won’t Stop Disintegrating!”,  posted at .


Nothing or no one less than God Himself could invent life, much less all of the forms of life that we see on planet Earth.  Genesis5.1-2-FamilyHistory-slide

Thankfully, God has always existed, and He is the ultimate and infinite LIFE.  So it is not hard for Him to create finite creatures, like us, who have life.  Wow!  Yet, for that life to be secured for an ever-blessed eternity, a choice to believe in Jesus as Savior must be timely made.  That is the precious promise (and warning) God gave us in John 3:16.John1.10-12-FamilyHistory-slide

What a good destiny: created and saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, for now and forever!

[Under the evangelistic preaching of Dr. Gilbert Williams,  at a small Methodist church’s weekend revival meeting,   in rural Maryland during November AD1967,  as a boy,  I happily believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, confirming my believing acceptance of God’s amazingly generous gift of redemption and forgiveness, as John 3:16 promises]


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


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)


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)



(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 .

(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 .

(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.]   ><>  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)


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


(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), .

(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).   




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 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.


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.


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.


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


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 .


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?


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)


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.



(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 );  “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  );  “Is the Present the ‘Key’ to the Past?” Acts & Facts, 43(6):19 (June 2014, posted at ).

(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.