Let's Address the Elephant(s) in the Room

Time to address the Elephant in the Room.  More good questions that we do not want to tip toe around.  Rather, this particular posting is simply a stimulation to dive deeper.  Each Q & A below are merely addressing the surface.  The bible goes much deeper into all these questions, In the coming weeks we hope to break the surface and dive a little deeper into many of the biblical perspectives that lend various focal points into these tough questions and more.

How Do You Know There Is a God?

You can’t prove there is a God.

They can’t prove there isn’t one.

Both involve faith.

The odds are 50/50

If I am wrong I lose nothing.

If I am right I gain everything.

If you are wrong you lose everything.

If you are right you gain nothing.

Either way you don’t gain a thing.

Even a wise gambler would go with the one that has the highest return

Don’t All Religions Take You To God?

All Religions don’t teach the same thing.

1.       The Claims of Jesus argue against this.

·         John 14:6 – Jesus said he was the only way to God.

·         Also in John 3:16-18

2.       Other claims in the Bible argue against this

·         Acts 4:12 – No other name by which people must be saved.

·         1 Peter 3:18 – Only Jesus can bring people back to God.

3.       The claims of other religions argue against this.

You have probably heard the expression, 

"grab the bull by the horns",

 this is more like 

"Pull the Elephant by the Trunk"

 

Isn’t the Bible Just a Book?

People will often say it has mistakes and contradictions.  Ask them to show you one?  Remember, very few people have ever even read the Bible.

A Few facts they should know about.

1.       The Bible is historically accurate.

·         Archaeological discoveries prove this

2.       The Bible is prophetically accurate.

·         100% success.

·         Example: Micah 5:2 birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

3.       The Bible has unity and consistency.

·         66 different volumes.

·         40 different authors.

·         Written over a 1500 year period.

·         Written from 3 different continents.

·         Involved 3 different languages.

4.       The Bible has endured.

 

Can we Trust the Bible?

NO

                It’s Reliability

·         14000 N.T. manuscripts

·         No Contradictions

·         Archeological Evidence

·         N.T. is 99.5% pure

It’s Uniqueness

·         40 authors

·         1500-1800 year time span

·         Many attempts to destroy it

·         Makes claims like no other book

It’s Beneficial Effects

·         It changed history

·         It continues to change lives

IT HAS IT’S PROBLEMS

                From God?

·         The Bible claims this (Lk. 24:44; 2 Ti. 3:16)

·         300 prophesies fulfilled in life of Jesus

Scientific Problems?

·         Bible deals more with the “Who” of creation rather than the “How”.

·         Many reputable scientists believe in it

Apparent Errors?

·         Where are they?

·         Most are easily explained

Miracles ?

·         If there is a God, miracles are “no problem”

·         Historical proof

(eyewitnesses & written accounts)

                Different Interpretations ?

·         Most Christians agree upon key areas

(God, man, sin, salvation)

               

YES

                Claims of Jesus

·         God’s Son

·         Pay for all peoples sin

·         Came back from dead

Decision

·         Everyone must make a decision to personally accept or reject him.

How Dumbo really lost his MOM ...

 

What About those who have never heard?

Points to remember:

1.       God is fair.

·         Romans 2:11

2.       God doesn’t want anyone to go to Hell.

·         2 Peter 3:9

3.       God makes Himself known to all people.

·         Romans 1:18-22

4.       All People distort and reject the true knowledge of God.

Romans 1:22-25

5.       People are held accountable for what they know, not for what they don’t know.

·         Those who haven’t heard about Christ aren’t judge for this but for rejecting him and God

·         Those who have heard about Christ and reject him are judged for both rejecting him and God

6.       God responds to those who respond to Him.

·         Acts 8:26-40 the Ethiopian man.

·         Acts 10 – Cornelius.

·         Acts 11:6 – God rewards those who seek him.

·         Matthew 7:7 – Seek and you will find.

7.       No one can be saved without Christ.

·         John 14:6

Why does God allow So Much Suffering?

1.       God Created a world free of suffering

·         Genesis 1-2

2.       People are the cause of suffering, not God

·         Genesis 3

3.       For God to remove suffering He would need to remove the cause of it - people

4.       For God to completely stop suffering He would need to take away our freedom of choice.

5.       If it weren’t for God there would be much ore suffering.

6.       God promises a time will come when there will be no more suffering for those who are His children.

·         Revelations  21:4

 

Taboo of Tattoos

To Tatt or not to Tatt

 So goes the controversy... the next couple weeks we will be digesting the issue of Tattoos, among a few other similar controversies.  Piercing, Branding, and other Body Art... just what does the bible say about them?

For starters... 
lets get familiar with Leviticus 19
seasoned with Galatians 6
with a pinch of 1Peter 1

Note: Three Part Mini-Series to Follow

1. Marked by the Cross
2. Pure Light
3. Touch of Heaven

It’s a good series taking a look at what the real "alternative" lifestye of a Christian should look like, filled with grace but marked by holiness.  Interesting sidenote: this series was kicked off after Louie surfed around MySpace and read profiles of college-age students claiming to know Christ, to go to church or have Jesus as their hero but whose profiles, comments, language, preferences and photos reflected a love and preference for darkness, not holiness and light.

Podcast Link: 

* Part 1 "Tattoo" - Marked by the Cross

 

Additional Links: Suggested Research Sites *

 

Christians with tattoos, Christian tattoos and Christian tattooists, what does the Bible teach about the current style of body décor?   If the Scriptures tell us that tattooing is a behavior that God says is wrong in any way, then it's certainly off limits for God's followers. But does the Bible teach that God forbids tattoos and other cosmetic body modifications?  Read more at the following link:

  *  Sacred Ink - Tattoo and the Bible

For a further, in depth study of Tattoo origins and the ethics from a biblical perspective the following PDF link is most helpful: 

*  The (Im)Morality of Tattoos

 

Our Conclusion - that Tattoos, piercings, and the like are less about the external branding, ID marks, body decor/art, etc...It's more about the deeper internal motives of the heart.  The links above give us a balanced biblical view and lend credit to both camps to tatt or not to tatt...  The danger is that our passion and conviction in one camp or the other may lead us to prejudice the motives of others.  As followers of Christ the ultimate question is how is Jesus made known through our own declarations which should be seasoned with grace and gentle speech, not demonstrative or militant persuasion. 

"The Bible" beats Zombies

Timely... although I haven't seen the new mini-series yet (10 hours on the History Chanel) - due to conclude Easter, it seems to be getting better ratings than the Zombies of "The Walking Dead"...

Satan, Demons, & Zombies

Zombie Apocalypse

... so there is this current cultural craze with Zombies, right?   Yet, what does the bible say about such things? Furthermore, what is the deal with Satan and Demons? What do you do with verses like these:

... Ezekiel 37:1-14 (Valley of the Dry Bones)

 ... He brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones.  He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry.  He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

...‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!... I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.  I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”
... I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.
... Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’”  
... So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.
... My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them
... Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

... Open Tombs - At Jesus Death (Matthew 27: 50-52)

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

... Or What about the Appearance of the Prophet Samuel to Saul - conjured up by the Witch of Endor.

... Or at the Mount of Transfiguration the Appearance of Moses & Elijah with Jesus in the Flesh.

... Or for that matter the Resurrected Bodies of Those Jesus brought back from the Dead, including HIMSELF.

... Or forward to the two Witnesses in Revelation that come to life with extraordinary powers after being dead for 3 days.

... Or all those that are Resurrected to stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ, or the Great White Throne Judgement?

... Other Passages to look over: compare/contrast - Zechariah 14:12 / 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

Linked Below is an article that I believe does biblical justice to our curiosity on "Everything You wanted to know about Satan-Demons-and Zombies...but were afraid to ask" Mark Driscoll

 As C. S. Lewis wrote in The Screwtape Letters , “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

for further insight on Satan, Demons, and Zombies click the following link -

http://pastormark.tv/2012/10/31/satan-demons-and-zombies 

Hairy Situation

Take Your Hat Off, Please!

I have been confronted on many occasions that wearing my hat on my head inside a public building, (including schools, and churches) was disrespectful, and inexcusable.  Because my parents raised me to honor my authorities I have submitted over the years to those who were offended by my cap wearing.  A most memorable occasion was during my Jr. Year in High School - There was such animosity among our teacher/advisers towards the "hat rule" that they rejected two of us from membership to the National Honor Society citing the hat rule as a point of contention.  I've learned over the years that the issue is more of a cultural preference rather than a moral dilemma that within the bible belt was a major sin - right up there with mowing your lawn on Sundays, playing with Cards, or Dancing.  

 
Now I can fully respect, and submit to a cultural norm that honors a system where we pay our respects by taking off our hats, (or take off our shoes when we enter someone elses house) but a system that backs up their reasoning by religious purposes, as if we win the ear of God by ritual, sacred, non-negotiables - well that stirs an unholy restlessness in me.  I believe Paul ran into some similar trivial issues in his day and gave us a couple of examples to follow.  Here are a couple other questions that surface within this discussion:  What about Hair length (male / female)?  What about beards or stylized hair?  What's the deal with ladies head wear?

1 Corinthians 9

¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.


Paul's example was to limit his own freedom and or indulge in his freedom depending on who his audience was so that he might not add any extra hurdle to someone coming to Christ.  We see examples of both of these situations when on an occasion we see Paul putting himself under the authority of the Jerusalem elders - and came alongside others who had made a vow under the law, He even went so far as to pay their fees that went along with their vows, furthermore He had timothy circumcised.  On another occasion Paul refused to put others under the yoke of the law circumcision rites - see life of Titus.  On another occasion Paul himself shaved his own head taking a vow that seemed to have some Judaism roots, even though Paul, of all people understood and experienced Grace, and Freedom in it's fullest.  All these examples go back to Paul honoring the cultural norms of Jew and/or Gentile, even while balancing his own personal convictions (1 Corinthians 9).

Extended Perspectives (Richard F. Nichols, "The Christian Informer", 2004)
Does the Divine record show that the apostle Paul kept the Law of Moses under any circumstance? 

This very question was being asked during his own ministry. Acts 18:18 says, "And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."
Upon his return to Jerusalem with the contributions from the Gentile churches to relieve the poverty of the Jewish Christians in Judea, Luke the writer states, "And the day following Paul went in with us unto James: and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
"Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touchIng the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place" (Acts 21:18-28) 

From Paul's own writing we read, "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). PAUL'S RESPECT FOR THE LAW
Although he knew and taught everywhere that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross and that no one was obligated to keep its commands for salvation, Paul's great respect for the Law is clearly seen in his actions and writings alike. He states that the "law is holy and the commandments holy and just and good" (Romans 7: 12). He described himself as having been a strict observer of the law, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee." Evidently, no one tried harder to be justified by the Law than did Paul. When he was on trial he said of himself, "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day" (Acts 22:3).
However, in writing to the Romans and the churches of Galatia he insists that without the Crucifixion no man could be justified by the law for no one could keep it perfectly, but salvation came only through the grace of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Neither before nor after his conversion did Paul set aside the law of God merely for convenience. Since he described himself as "a Hebrew among Hebrews" before his conversion, afterward he could very well be called "a Christian among Christians." 

 THREE ISSUES
In this study we will look at three issues which come up in respect to this question. 

The first is-
"Did Paul teach the Jews not to circumcise their Children?"
Paul had a deep respect for God's Law issued by Moses. He had a love for his own people, national Israel, and honored his heritage as a Jew. When Jewish customs which would not compromise his Christian princip1es could be kept he did them. However, his enemies misrepresented Paul saying that he taught "the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21). This allegation, of course, troubled some Jewish brethren.
At the meeting of the Apostles in Acts 15 Paul declared that his teaching among the Gentile converts was that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Nowhere do we find evidence that Paul taught Jews not to circumcise their children in respect of their heritage. In fact, that Paul might win some, he had the half-Jewish Timothy circumcised. "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." (Acts 16:3: also see 1 Corinthians 9:20,21 above).
Nevertheless, Paul refused to have Titus circumcised because the Judaizers were trying to bind circumcision upon him and others as being necessary to salvation. To clearly show this to be false teaching Paul rejected the pressure to have Titus circumcised.

The second question is-
"Did Paul violate his own teaching when he helped the four men pay their charges?"
After his third missionary Journey, when he arrived in Judea, James advised Paul to help four poor men fulfill their obligation from their vow (Acts 21:23-26). This was an attempt to avoid a great uproar and to silence the false reports being circulated about his teaching. The four were apparently under a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6). Under such a vow they were not to eat any product of the vine, nor come near any dead body, nor to make themselves unclean for their father, mother, brother, or sister when they died; also as an evidence of this vow (Numbers 6:3-7). Afterward they were to present an offering when the days of the vow were completed.

"Did Paul violate his own teaching when he kept a vow at Cenchrea?"
There were other voluntary vows which many Jews kept which did not involve the necessary elements of the Nazarite vow (See Leviticus 27:2; 1 Samuel 1:11 and 2 Samuel 15:7). We infer from Acts 18 that this was Paul's case when he had preached a year and a half in Corinth. The Scripture says that persecution came upon Paul and he was brought before the Jewish council and he "after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow." This evidently was simply a voluntary vow for it didn't carry with it all those other elements.
In the case of the four at Jerusalem in Acts 21, we understand that "the person who paid the expenses for the poor devotees who could not afford the necessary charges shared the vow so far as that he was required to stay with the Nazarites until the time the vow had expired. For a week, then, Paul, if he accepted the advice of James and the elders, would have to live with the four paupers in the chamber of the temple set apart for this purpose; and then pay for the sixteen sacrificial animals and the accompanying meat offerings.

"He must also stand among the Nazarites during the offering of the sacrifice, and look on while their heads were shaved, and while they took their hair to burn it under the cauldron of the peace offerings, and while the priest took four sodden shoulders of rams, and four unleavened cakes out of the four baskets, and four unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and put them on the hands of the Nazarites and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord" (Vincent's Word Studies).

Paying the expenses for the four poor men who had come to the close of their vow signified only that Paul was helping the poor but not also taking their vow. But it seemed enough to these brethren that in doing so Paul would become a Jew to the Jews that he might win some 
(1 Corinthians 9:20-21). He was not acting in this manner to obtain his salvation, but rather for the sake of others. This was what the brethren encouraged him to do so "that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing" as they would put it. THE LETTER OF ACTS 15
The request made of Paul in Acts 21 was in no way a violation of his teaching to the Gentile converts nor of the commands made in the letter to be circulated among them in Acts 15. Paul was not inconsistent, nor did he compromise his own teaching, but he rather showed a respect for the convictions of those who had not yet learned.

Suppose that we were to visit Japan. While there, we observe that one of the customs of the people was to take their shoes off before entering the house. We determined that to be a harmless practice with some virtues and so we began to take our shoes off before entering our houses. But suppose that someone came along and told us that we must take off our shoes before entering a house or we would be lost. All of a sudden, taking off our shoes is no longer a matter of custom but has become a supposed matter of salvation. Can we practice it now? Maybe simply as a custom? Yes, but, we must make it perfectly clear to all that it has nothing to do with our salvation.

Now let us briefly look back at Acts 18:18 where Paul cut his hair off in Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. A vow like this was a solemn promise made to God. Vows are found throughout the Scriptures. "Jacob, going into Mesopotamia, vowed a tenth of his estate, and promised to offer it at Bethel to the honor of God (Genesis 28:22). A man might devote himself or his children to the Lord. He might devote any part of his time or property to his service" (Barnes' Notes). The most remarkable vow among the Jews was that of the Nazarite. Paul's vow (Acts 18), as we mentioned, is similar to a Nazarite vow in that his head was shaved, yet unlike that formal vow because he did not shave his hair in Jerusalem nor burn it on the altar as was commanded in Numbers 6:13-16. Vows were also common for Jews to make to God as an expression of gratitude or of devotedness to his service when they had been raised from sickness or delivered from peril or disaster.

We have every reason to believe that Paul was thankful for all that the Lord had done for him and accomplished through his work and took this personal vow to show his gratitude. His vow seems to nave been a private matter of gratitude for possibly the mercy Paul had been granted or for some deliverance from danger. Concerning the reason we are not told but it certainly was not similar to the Nazarite vow and its obligations.

Despite Paul's efforts to become all things to all men in order to win some, there were those who were not happy with his efforts. After paying the costs of the vow of the four men, he was accused of defiling the temple by taking a Gentile into the temple with him (Acts 21:28-29). Aren't the enemies of the Cross something?!! Simply because Paul had been seen with Trophimous, his detractors assumed he had taken the man in the temple with him.

First, the Jews jumped to a conclusion about what he taught because of what they heard about him, and then they judged him by his associations. In an attempt to destroy Jesus' influence his enemies pointed out the sinners with whom he associated (Matthew 9: 10,11). 

From terrible mistakes of these Jews we need to learn to be very slow to draw conclusions about what another teaches based on what we have heard. Furthermore, we need to learn to be very cautious about judging a person because of his associations. We need to hear for ourselves what a person teaches and kindly enquire if we think error has been taught. We need to personally ask the person himself why he conducts himself so. The Jews teach us how not to treat one another. 


From Paul we learn how to get along with people and their customs. The apostle bent over backwards to accommodate the harmless customs around him, and in their misgivings he tried to comfort them, but never compromised the Truth. By always teaching the same things in every place 
(1 Corinthians 4: 17), he tried to defuse false accusations of prejudice and partiality. He invited his false accusers to come and hear him. Should we not embrace these practices? We all need to be more like Christ and to follow Paul as he followed our Lord and never adopt the attitude of the Jews who persecuted both of them.

Useless Body Parts

Vestigial Organs

What is the deal with all these Useless Body Parts?  So I don't need my tonsils, appendix, and pinky toe?  Really they don't serve a purpose?  Evolutionist would love us to think that, but the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.  If that theory has been largely shot down in the world of Human Anatomy how much more in the field of zoology.  

First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
 
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

Wings on birds that do not fly?

There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.
b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?
c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?

 
 Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.

Why do male humans have nipples?

This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female — again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.
What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.

Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?

This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.

Legless lizards

It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ‘amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.
Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.

The Appendix

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

Hip bones in whales

These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.  Also it is well known that the tail motion is quite different in sea mammals compared to most fish - mammals such as whales motion their tales up and down where as fish sway side to side, giving additional purposes to a whales hip. 

Teeth in embryonic baleen whales

Evolutionists claim that they show that baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. However they have not provided an adequate mechanism for scrapping one perfectly good system (teeth) and replacing it with a very different system (baleen or whalebone). Also, the teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.

Transcript from: ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?by Dr Don batten and Dr Jonathan Sarfati (Creation.com)