I have not been able to post much here lately as I have been studying for a promotion exam at work. However, come March we should have more activity here!
In the mean time, check out this AiG short video!
And be sure to "like" my Facebook page to get updates and join discussions! Invite interested parties to like as well.
Thanks, God Bless you all in the new year!
The scientific community, society and even many churches have accepted that the earth is billions of years old and evolution by natural selection and chance have brought about the world that we know today. Where is the evidence for this conclusion? What does the Bible actually say? Let's start a respectful conversation.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Can We Prove the Bible is True?
Good article! It explains well why I don't do this blog primarily as a witnessing tool, but rather to encourage other Christians in their faith.
Answers in Genesis Article
Answers in Genesis Article
Friday, October 3, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Flood Legends From Around the World
In my last post I alluded to flood legends from around the world. Check out this paper that documents these stories! Very hard to explain how these stories could be so prevalent without a recent global flood!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Tags: Noah flood Genesis ark Ararat creationist Christian Bible anthropology origins debate
Friday, September 12, 2014
Blog Update and Genesis Week Season 4 Kickoff!
I've been super busy with my job lately and have not had time to finish up my "evidence series".
I will be getting back on track soon, however.
In the mean-time, check out the season premier of Genesis Week! Ian is back with more great evidence and reasons to trust the Genesis creation and flood accounts. If what the Bible says is true about the origins of this planet, shouldn't you consider what it says about the planet's future?
Here are some quick links for the time being:
My prophecy and world events blog
Evidence for Noah's Flood #5
Evidence for Noah's Flood #4
Soft Dinosaur Tissue, The 60 Minutes Interview
I will be getting back on track soon, however.
In the mean-time, check out the season premier of Genesis Week! Ian is back with more great evidence and reasons to trust the Genesis creation and flood accounts. If what the Bible says is true about the origins of this planet, shouldn't you consider what it says about the planet's future?
Here are some quick links for the time being:
My prophecy and world events blog
Evidence for Noah's Flood #5
Evidence for Noah's Flood #4
Soft Dinosaur Tissue, The 60 Minutes Interview
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Resonse to Friend Regarding Evolution Before Our Eyes
This post is in response to a couple articles my good friend Blake presented to me.
Animals That are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Ant Species May Support a Controversial Theory on Evolution
First of all, I am always glad to get interaction and discussion involved. I don't have all the answers to all the skeptics questions, and I always welcome expanding my knowledge and hearing an alternative position.
Let me begin by stating that the creationist model requires great flexibility and adaptability within the animal kingdom. This adaptability is made possible by having an enormous amount of already-programed genetic information available to the creature that allows certain traits to become apparent via natural selection. Over the years, through breeding and isolation, certain traits are kept and others are whittled away. Think of it as once there was a lot of information and now we see loss of information. Thus we should see examples of de-evolution such as example #7 and the skinks from #4 and #3 from the first article.
In #7, an increasing number of elephants did not have tusks, due (probably) to the demand for ivory. Elephants without tusks (which have existed previously) have a better chance of breeding now than before the ivory-driven elephant poaching. This is natural selection. This is not upwards, onward evolution. The elephants without tusks has less information than elephants with tusks. These elephants, along with the skinks that are losing their legs are losing capability, not gaining new ones. I hate that we are seeing this take place.
#6, dogs are super smart and adapt to their environment. These Russian dogs ride the subway and rob people blind using charm and strong-paw techniques. Coyotes have always impressed me with their hunting/survival tricks. I'm sure these dogs learned what works, and passed it on to their pups, generation to generation, just like a mother lion teaches her young to hunt.
#5 Fish became immune to toxins dumped by humans. I believe this is an example of incredible design. The creator of this fish (and many other fish) hooked it up with the ability to recognize and overcome toxins!
#4 Lizards dance to stay alive. Apparently these lizards have figured out that to get lethal fire ants off of them they can shake. This trait appears to be learned and passed from generation to generation. Although cool and all, not evidence for the origin of species. It also claims the legs are evolving to be longer. Look at greyhounds, they have long legs as well, from selective breeding. Humans selected desirable traits from pre-existing information; the nature did it for the lizards. Fortunately the creator made room for the creatures to populate and adapt to the earth and it's various environments and demands. Animals can specialize, but do not become new creatures.
#3 Lizards became omnivores, when they previously were carnivores. The lizards evolved a new muscle that slowed their digestion to allow them to eat veggies. I am pretty sure that a thorough examination of the pre-1971 lizard innards genome would show a cecal valve gene. It didn't just invent this valve/muscle; this is present in other lizards and even humans.
That's all I have time for now, I will post more later!
Animals That are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Ant Species May Support a Controversial Theory on Evolution
First of all, I am always glad to get interaction and discussion involved. I don't have all the answers to all the skeptics questions, and I always welcome expanding my knowledge and hearing an alternative position.
Let me begin by stating that the creationist model requires great flexibility and adaptability within the animal kingdom. This adaptability is made possible by having an enormous amount of already-programed genetic information available to the creature that allows certain traits to become apparent via natural selection. Over the years, through breeding and isolation, certain traits are kept and others are whittled away. Think of it as once there was a lot of information and now we see loss of information. Thus we should see examples of de-evolution such as example #7 and the skinks from #4 and #3 from the first article.
In #7, an increasing number of elephants did not have tusks, due (probably) to the demand for ivory. Elephants without tusks (which have existed previously) have a better chance of breeding now than before the ivory-driven elephant poaching. This is natural selection. This is not upwards, onward evolution. The elephants without tusks has less information than elephants with tusks. These elephants, along with the skinks that are losing their legs are losing capability, not gaining new ones. I hate that we are seeing this take place.
#6, dogs are super smart and adapt to their environment. These Russian dogs ride the subway and rob people blind using charm and strong-paw techniques. Coyotes have always impressed me with their hunting/survival tricks. I'm sure these dogs learned what works, and passed it on to their pups, generation to generation, just like a mother lion teaches her young to hunt.
#5 Fish became immune to toxins dumped by humans. I believe this is an example of incredible design. The creator of this fish (and many other fish) hooked it up with the ability to recognize and overcome toxins!
#4 Lizards dance to stay alive. Apparently these lizards have figured out that to get lethal fire ants off of them they can shake. This trait appears to be learned and passed from generation to generation. Although cool and all, not evidence for the origin of species. It also claims the legs are evolving to be longer. Look at greyhounds, they have long legs as well, from selective breeding. Humans selected desirable traits from pre-existing information; the nature did it for the lizards. Fortunately the creator made room for the creatures to populate and adapt to the earth and it's various environments and demands. Animals can specialize, but do not become new creatures.
#3 Lizards became omnivores, when they previously were carnivores. The lizards evolved a new muscle that slowed their digestion to allow them to eat veggies. I am pretty sure that a thorough examination of the pre-1971 lizard innards genome would show a cecal valve gene. It didn't just invent this valve/muscle; this is present in other lizards and even humans.
That's all I have time for now, I will post more later!
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Bible Contradictions: Response to Scientia Perceptum
This post is in response to Scientia Perceptum's claims that the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ contradict one another.
I already explained to him how the different accounts of which women went to the tomb differ but do not contradict. None of them state that Mary Magdalene went by herself, but only mentioned her as the more significant person in the group.
SP also brought up that one book records an earthquake and the others do not, and that the description of the stone being rolled away differs as well. But if you read the gospel accounts on these items, they also differ, but do not contradict. I believe the differing stories help bolster the credibility of these accounts. If they read the same, SP would instead be claiming the writers conspired to collaborate on their stories.
The next objection SP brought up was that it seems as if in one account (Matthew) there is an angel sitting on the stone in the midst of a violent earthquake when the women arrived to the tomb, meanwhile Mark says that the women walked into the open tomb to find an angel inside. Contradiction? No. Matthew does not state that the angel was sitting on the rock when the women arrived, but that he did so as he terrified the guards during the earthquake after rolling away the stone. So by the time the women arrive the angel is inside the tomb with his counterpart (according to Luke there was also a second angel). The angel then directs the women to come to the place where he lay to see that he was not there. Tombs in that day were cavernous and this being the tomb of a rich man, we would expect there to be some space within the tomb itself.
The major key points of the account are present in the accounts. Even the fine details hold up to the scrutiny of sharp minded critics like SP.
I hope you take time to read the resurrection accounts in the scriptures for yourself. They give hope and show the life that is possible by faith in Christ.
I already explained to him how the different accounts of which women went to the tomb differ but do not contradict. None of them state that Mary Magdalene went by herself, but only mentioned her as the more significant person in the group.
SP also brought up that one book records an earthquake and the others do not, and that the description of the stone being rolled away differs as well. But if you read the gospel accounts on these items, they also differ, but do not contradict. I believe the differing stories help bolster the credibility of these accounts. If they read the same, SP would instead be claiming the writers conspired to collaborate on their stories.
Also, I must add that if the disciples wanted to make a believable story that helped boost their standing among early Christians and spread their "new religion", they would not tell a story of women (who were thought of as second-class citizens during that time) finding the empty grave while the disciples were in despair and doubt.
The major key points of the account are present in the accounts. Even the fine details hold up to the scrutiny of sharp minded critics like SP.
I hope you take time to read the resurrection accounts in the scriptures for yourself. They give hope and show the life that is possible by faith in Christ.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
5 Evidences of Noah's Flood--Evidence #4: Bent Rock Layers and Polystrate Fossils
For evidence number 4 in this series, I will highlight rock strata. The layered rocks shown in the pictures below were formed with the older layers on the bottom with the newer layers on top. Creationists and evolutionists agree on this. They disagree on the amount of time that passed between the layers forming. Evolutionists will claim millions of years while a creationist would claim days or even hours. But what does the evidence show? One doesn't need to be a geologist to observe these layered rocks for themselves! Just drive along a highway through mountains or hills that required the road workers to cut through the mountain or hillside. I can't think of an area where I haven't seen these rock formations. They are everywhere, and there are unique features that can be observed within them.
Although much of the strata is flat, as shown in picture above, some of it is bent (below). Creationists and Evolutionists agree that strata is laid down flat and that there should be no bend in the rock. But what do we make of rock such as these:
Obviously these formations did not start out like this, so what could have made them bend so sharply without breaking?
In my day job and in science in general, it is commonly said that the most simple explanation is usually the best and correct. Let's look at the two explanations and see which one explains the evidence the best:
Evolution: The rocks were laid down layer-by-layer over many tens of thousands or millions of years. By the time a new layer was built up, the ones beneath it were hardened. Once fully formed, somehow the rock was subjected to tremendous heat and pressure (it would have to be buried very deep underground) which caused the rock to lose rigidity and bend into these tight curves without breaking, cracking, or completely melting. Then, in order for us to see these rocks today, they had to return back up to the surface, cool down, and re-harden. [1]
Now, foundational to the creationist model is that the mountains and continents were pushed up as a result of the flood bursting up from the fountains of the deep (Genesis Ch 7). The mountains we see today are a result of massive mid and post-flood plate tectonic activity.
Creation: While some of the strata was still soft from having been laid down by the flood, mountains were pushed up through these layers and this caused the strata to bend. Note: in this model the strata stays at the surface, where we see it today. This is very simple, and a powerful evidence for the creation model. [2]
The creationist model is simple and makes the most sense, especially since this is a commonly observed phenomenon.
If these rock layers formed over thousands and millions of years, how did the tree stay intact during the burial? Dead trees rot and are broken down by insects, and do not last very long after dying. If a tree dies, doesn't it fall over, anyway? How does it last long enough and stay vertical?
Once again, creationists have a simple, reasonable solution: it was buried suddenly. Each layer represents a new flood deposit (tides alone could likely account for at least 4 layers a day during the year long flood). In this case the trees were buried upright with no evidence of decay between layers. A recent event helps illustrate this process well: After the eruption of Mt St Helens, Spirit Lake provided a modern, scaled down version of trees being buried vertically in sediment.
“I tell you,” Jesus replied, “if the people keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” [4]
More bent strata pictures
Additional article, maybe a little cooler than mine
[1] http://www.oldearth.org/plasticdeformation.htm
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/
[3] Morris, J. 2009. A Classic Polystrate Fossil. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 15
[4] Luke 19:40 paraphrased
Sedimentary rock in the Garden of the Gods, CO |
Tightly Bent Strata
Although much of the strata is flat, as shown in picture above, some of it is bent (below). Creationists and Evolutionists agree that strata is laid down flat and that there should be no bend in the rock. But what do we make of rock such as these:
Bent strata near Green River, WY. Not bad for going 80 mph down the interstate! |
Bend rock layers |
Sullivan River, British Columbia |
Obviously these formations did not start out like this, so what could have made them bend so sharply without breaking?
In my day job and in science in general, it is commonly said that the most simple explanation is usually the best and correct. Let's look at the two explanations and see which one explains the evidence the best:
Evolution: The rocks were laid down layer-by-layer over many tens of thousands or millions of years. By the time a new layer was built up, the ones beneath it were hardened. Once fully formed, somehow the rock was subjected to tremendous heat and pressure (it would have to be buried very deep underground) which caused the rock to lose rigidity and bend into these tight curves without breaking, cracking, or completely melting. Then, in order for us to see these rocks today, they had to return back up to the surface, cool down, and re-harden. [1]
Now, foundational to the creationist model is that the mountains and continents were pushed up as a result of the flood bursting up from the fountains of the deep (Genesis Ch 7). The mountains we see today are a result of massive mid and post-flood plate tectonic activity.
Creation: While some of the strata was still soft from having been laid down by the flood, mountains were pushed up through these layers and this caused the strata to bend. Note: in this model the strata stays at the surface, where we see it today. This is very simple, and a powerful evidence for the creation model. [2]
The creationist model is simple and makes the most sense, especially since this is a commonly observed phenomenon.
Polystrate Fossils
Ok, that word is made up, but it works. Poly meaning many, and strate meaning layers. A polystrate fossil is one that cuts through many layers of sedimentary rock. The most common (understandably) are trees [3].
Story behind this partially uncovered polystrate tree fossil. Photo courtesy of Ian Juby [3] |
If these rock layers formed over thousands and millions of years, how did the tree stay intact during the burial? Dead trees rot and are broken down by insects, and do not last very long after dying. If a tree dies, doesn't it fall over, anyway? How does it last long enough and stay vertical?
Once again, creationists have a simple, reasonable solution: it was buried suddenly. Each layer represents a new flood deposit (tides alone could likely account for at least 4 layers a day during the year long flood). In this case the trees were buried upright with no evidence of decay between layers. A recent event helps illustrate this process well: After the eruption of Mt St Helens, Spirit Lake provided a modern, scaled down version of trees being buried vertically in sediment.
“I tell you,” Jesus replied, “if the people keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” [4]
More bent strata pictures
Additional article, maybe a little cooler than mine
[1] http://www.oldearth.org/plasticdeformation.htm
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/
[3] Morris, J. 2009. A Classic Polystrate Fossil. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 15
[4] Luke 19:40 paraphrased
Saturday, June 28, 2014
5 Evidences of Noah's Flood -- #5: Geologic Evidence
Let's look at the extensive geologic evidence of a global flood.
A common accusation against biblical creationists is that they operate off of blind faith and turn a blind eye toward science. Although I am sure many Christians accept the entirety of the bible on faith, we are charged to test all things, and to also be ready to give the reason for the faith and hope that we have. The flood account in Genesis makes some very bold claims that should be evidenced in both human history and in geology. The validity of the flood account has serious implications for all of us and deserves our attention. Over the next few weeks I hope to cover 5 of the numerous, strong evidences for a recent global flood that confirm the Biblical account. This post covers the extensive geologic evidence for a global flood.
Fossil-bearing Rock Layers
It seems as though scientists claim that every "dinosaur graveyard" was the result of a devastating local flood. That a herd of dinos were swept away by a raging river, etc. These fossils are found entombed in chalk, sandstone or silt deposits and often preserved remarkably well. Frequently, the dinosaurs are in the "death pose", indicating they were being drowned or suffocated at the time of death.Death Pose |
A major source of dinosaur fossils is the Morrison Formation, which is found in 13 western US states (though mostly in Wyoming and Colorado) and contains billions of fossils that were obviously buried in a flood. These fossil-bearing rock layers are quite thick and spread across much of the prairie in these states and provide a classic example of the fossil formations we find throughout the world. Creationists maintain that these layers were formed during the flood as the waters rose and tidal forces upon the rising seas caused tsunami-like waves. It was these waves that wiped out and deposited the dinosaurs and caused the extensive sediment layers to form.
Morrison, CO where these layers are exposed |
Could this be formed by a local river or lake's seasonal flood? Source License |
Mixed in with the dinosaur bones in the Morrison Formation, are clam and snail shells. Scientists point to these shells (found even on the tops of the highest peaks in Colorado) and explain that they prove that the region was once an ocean bed. Creationists agree completely, since they believe the flood was global. But how do these scientists explain how these marine fossils became mixed together with land-dwelling dinosaur bones?
Bones cannot fossilize unless they are buried, and without a rapid burial, damage, decay and scavenging will occur. These creatures were buried together rapidly across an enormous region in the same rock layers. Global flooding can explain this. Local flooding cannot.
There are also many other sediment and rock formations that spread over massive regions. For example, the same Cretaceous chalk beds in Texas and Nebraska continue (with identical sediments and fossils) in the Chalk Cliffs of Dover England to the Middle East and Kazakhstan (1).
The fact that these formations stretch across multiple continents point to massive deposition at a time when the continents were together (creationist view on plate tectonics around the time of the flood). What, other than a flood of global proportions, could bury marine fossils across such a huge area?
I would be remiss to not touch on the Grand Canyon as enormous evidence for the flood, but for sake of time and space, I will provide this link for those interested in this topic.
2 Peter 3:3-6 (NIV)
3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
The evidence is everywhere. Most likely you are reading this thanks to a power plant that runs off of coal, leftovers from the ancient world. What will you do with the evidence laid out before you? Just as God provided a way for people to avoid the flood waters, he is providing an ark of safety for the world today: His son Jesus. Jesus can save us from ourselves, our sin, and the coming judgement. All we must do is put our faith in Him as our only hope of salvation.
(1) Dr. Andrew Snelling, 2008:
Bones cannot fossilize unless they are buried, and without a rapid burial, damage, decay and scavenging will occur. These creatures were buried together rapidly across an enormous region in the same rock layers. Global flooding can explain this. Local flooding cannot.
There are also many other sediment and rock formations that spread over massive regions. For example, the same Cretaceous chalk beds in Texas and Nebraska continue (with identical sediments and fossils) in the Chalk Cliffs of Dover England to the Middle East and Kazakhstan (1).
The fact that these formations stretch across multiple continents point to massive deposition at a time when the continents were together (creationist view on plate tectonics around the time of the flood). What, other than a flood of global proportions, could bury marine fossils across such a huge area?
I would be remiss to not touch on the Grand Canyon as enormous evidence for the flood, but for sake of time and space, I will provide this link for those interested in this topic.
Fossil Fuels
Likewise, coal beds are observed with the same fossilized plants across massive swaths of land. The sheer amount of coal and oil deposits across the globe are very strong evidence of a global flood washing away and burying dense vegetation. We don't see new oil or coal being created today by natural processes, yet it is found throughout the entire world. How did these deposits get laid down and buried underground without a massive flood?2 Peter 3:3-6 (NIV)
3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
The evidence is everywhere. Most likely you are reading this thanks to a power plant that runs off of coal, leftovers from the ancient world. What will you do with the evidence laid out before you? Just as God provided a way for people to avoid the flood waters, he is providing an ark of safety for the world today: His son Jesus. Jesus can save us from ourselves, our sin, and the coming judgement. All we must do is put our faith in Him as our only hope of salvation.
(1) Dr. Andrew Snelling, 2008:
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Bullying is Wrong? Says Who?
Everyone knows bullying is wrong. Kids do it all the time; grown men and women even do it to gain leverage over weaker people or to feel better about themselves. Whether it is playground bullying, college hazing or the more anonymous cyber-bullying, everyone knows it is awful and wrong.
The wild animal's life is chalked full of abuse from the time it is born, through adolescence and especially during the mating seasons. The weaker animal forfeits his right to breed or even eat to the stronger, healthier one. Although we as humans are sometimes pained to see this (all of creation groans, Romans 8:22) not one of us would make a claim that the alpha male wolf is wrong in achieving dominance. This is one of the keys to keeping the gene pool healthy. This is just survival of the fittest.
Tragically, bullying is just as prevalent among people as it is among animals. Go to a playground, listen to kids on the street playing, read online forums or YouTube comments, go inside a high school sports locker room, go almost anywhere in any culture and you will see this behavior. This is a serious problem and almost everyone agrees that it is wrong.
If "bullying" is what brought about the human race (as evolution would suggest), why should we abandon it now? If it worked so well by killing off weaker animals and keeping them from breeding, and humans are obviously far from perfect, why would we abstain from this behavior now?
Why is bullying wrong for humans but not for animals? It happens just as much in our culture as it does in the animal "cultures". Apparently it is just as natural to people as it is to animals. Kids don't need to learn how to bully, they have to be taught not to bully.
So how does an evolutionist explain why we have our personal convictions or our sense of morality?
In my experience, evolutionists will often say that over the years our culture evolved this heightened sense of morality as a survival mechanism. The logic behind it being, "I will scratch your back, hoping you will scratch mine". Then, after millions of years of this behavior at work, we all began to develop morals.
So then who decides what is right or wrong? Perhaps you are convinced that harming others is wrong, but what if there existed a person who had no problem with bullying or abuse (not so far-fetched is it?). Would it be wrong for him to abuse weaker people? He is obviously just acting instinctively, just like any other animal. Perhaps he isn't evolved enough. Maybe he is actually more evolved than you. Nope, still not alright, is it?
OK, so maybe society as a whole needs to define right and wrong. So what if an entire culture or country had no problem with bullying or even murder? Would it be OK then? Of course not! Killing Jews was perfectly acceptable among Nazi circles in Germany prior to WWII's conclusion. That doesn't mean it was moral.
God has given mankind an inherent ability to see right from wrong. We all are given a conscience, and we are meant to be different from the beasts. Although fallen and carnal, unlike animals we have capacity for compassion, love, loyalty, chivalry and conviction. These things can be tossed aside, but they clearly differentiate us from mere animals.
Our Creator instructs us:
Can you imagine what our world would look like if we all followed this instruction? Morality is not conditional, but absolute. This is easily explained by, and even foundational to the Christian worldview, but incompatible with evolutionary thinking.
How did we arrive at this conviction
when the animal kingdom exists because of bullying?
when the animal kingdom exists because of bullying?
Sad, but necessary in today's world (Source) |
Tragically, bullying is just as prevalent among people as it is among animals. Go to a playground, listen to kids on the street playing, read online forums or YouTube comments, go inside a high school sports locker room, go almost anywhere in any culture and you will see this behavior. This is a serious problem and almost everyone agrees that it is wrong.
Clearly wrong |
Because we all know it is wrong.
Why is bullying wrong for humans but not for animals? It happens just as much in our culture as it does in the animal "cultures". Apparently it is just as natural to people as it is to animals. Kids don't need to learn how to bully, they have to be taught not to bully.
So how does an evolutionist explain why we have our personal convictions or our sense of morality?
How do we know bullying is absolutely wrong?
In my experience, evolutionists will often say that over the years our culture evolved this heightened sense of morality as a survival mechanism. The logic behind it being, "I will scratch your back, hoping you will scratch mine". Then, after millions of years of this behavior at work, we all began to develop morals.
So then who decides what is right or wrong? Perhaps you are convinced that harming others is wrong, but what if there existed a person who had no problem with bullying or abuse (not so far-fetched is it?). Would it be wrong for him to abuse weaker people? He is obviously just acting instinctively, just like any other animal. Perhaps he isn't evolved enough. Maybe he is actually more evolved than you. Nope, still not alright, is it?
OK, so maybe society as a whole needs to define right and wrong. So what if an entire culture or country had no problem with bullying or even murder? Would it be OK then? Of course not! Killing Jews was perfectly acceptable among Nazi circles in Germany prior to WWII's conclusion. That doesn't mean it was moral.
Humans are clearly not animals.
Can a lion murder another lion? No, that is called survival of the fittest.
Should a human even so much as verbally abuse another? No, that would clearly be wrong.
Bullying is often a major factor in teenage suicide and also sometimes leads to acts of violent retribution. This doesn't make bullying wrong, it happens because bullying is wrong. Should a human even so much as verbally abuse another? No, that would clearly be wrong.
God has given mankind an inherent ability to see right from wrong. We all are given a conscience, and we are meant to be different from the beasts. Although fallen and carnal, unlike animals we have capacity for compassion, love, loyalty, chivalry and conviction. These things can be tossed aside, but they clearly differentiate us from mere animals.
Our Creator instructs us:
Isaiah 1:17 (NIV)
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Racism Must End
Read this outstanding article by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. There are no grounds for racism especially if one takes the biblical account at face value. Racism took root because man's heart is wicked and he often looks to tear down others while loving himself.
Read this awesome article on "black and white twins".
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Evolution's Human Population Problem
World population is a very interesting indication if a young earth. Ian Juby makes a couple very compelling points in one of his Crevo Rants. One of these is that if mankind has been on the earth for 200,000 years as evolutionists believe, and they have been burying their dead for over 100,000 years, why don't we find billions of graves? Why aren't there billions more people alive today? One might cite the starvation that very unfortunately plagues our planets people today and suggest that the planet cannot support more human life. We should instead consider that the people that are starving aren't starving because of a global food deficit, but rather are subject to the abuse of their government or other oppressive authority that does not allow food aid to reach the people. Solving world hunger isn't about growing more food, it is about getting the food we have to the people that need it!
Watch the 8-min video by Ian Juby here.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Aliens and Evolution
Ian Juby strikes again! Another great episode of Genesis Week, where he discusses the possibility of life on other planets.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
8 Biggest Mysteries of Our Planet (news article)
The Bible has the answers to all but one of these eight foundational questions regarding our planet. Men chose to ignore the Creator's account of what He did, in favor of wild speculation and mystery. They do this because they know that having a creator places expectation and responsibility upon them. Read the Fox News article 8 Biggest Mysteries of Our Planet
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Gravitational Waves
The recent discovery of gravitational waves has atheists all kinds of excited. Ian Juby did a good job discussing the gravitational waves and the still present problems with the naturalists Big Bang. Watch the video in which he discusses the topic for 15 or 20 min. http://youtu.be/JG6ol841uIs
My perspective on all this is that I don't know how God created the cosmos, except by speaking. I do believe that when He said "let there be light" that was him creating time and space. Light is intrinsically related to time and space. God created these dimensions from nothing. He was and is outside of this universe, not bound by time. He had no beginning but created the beginning. He didn't create the sun, moon, or other stars until after he created the plants. I think He did that to show he really was talking about 24-hr days.
There are creationist models that explain how we can have light arriving here from far distant stars, they don't need special physics or billions of earth years, they also eliminate the big bang's light travel problem(an even microwave background radiation across the universe, for which 14 billion years isn't nearly enough time to achieve). Ian's guest in the second video, Dr. Russell Humphreys, created one such creationist model That has made predictions that naturalistic cosmologies failed to make.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Not that we needed more water for a global flood...
- AFP/NASA/AFP/File - This NASA image released on January 26, 2012 shows A 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's Earth-observing satellite - Suomi NPP
A hundred and fifty years ago, in "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", French science-fiction forerunner Jules Verne pictured a vast sea that lay deep under our planet's surface.
Today, that strange and haunting image has found an unexpected echo in a scientific paper.
Writing in the journal Nature, scientists on Wednesday said they had found an elusive mineral pointing to the existence of a vast reservoir deep in Earth's mantle, 400-600 kilometres (250-375 miles) beneath our feet.
It may hold as much water as all the planet's oceans combined, they believe.
The evidence comes from a water-loving mineral called ringwoodite that came from the so-called transition zone sandwiched between the upper and lower layers of Earth's mantle, they said.
Analysis shows that a whopping 1.5 percent of the rock comprises molecules of water.
The find backs once-contested theories that the transition zone, or at least significant parts of it, is water-rich, the investigators said.
"This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area," said Graham Pearson of Canada's University of Alberta, who led the research.
"That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world's oceans put together."
Ringwoodite is named after Australian geologist Ted Ringwood, who theorised that a special mineral was bound to be created in the transition zone because of the ultra-high pressures and temperatures there.
A piece of this mineral has been a long-sought goal. It would resolve a long-running debate about whether the poorly-understood transition zone is bone-dry or water-rich.
But, until now, ringwoodite has only ever been found in meteorites. Geologists had simply been unable to delve deep enough to find any sample on Earth.
- Worthless diamond brings luck -
Good fortune, though, changed all this.
In 2008, amateur gem-hunters digging in shallow river gravel in the Juina area of Mato Grasso, Brazil, came across a tiny, grubby stone called a brown diamond.
Measuring just three millimetres (0.12 inches) across and commercially worthless, the stone was acquired by the scientists when they were on a quest for other minerals.
But the accidental acquisition turned out to be a bonanza.
In its interior, they found a microscopic trace of ringwoodite -- the very first terrestrial evidence of the ultra-rare rock.
"It's so small, this inclusion, it's extremely difficult to find, never mind work on," Pearson said in a press release, paying tribute to the diligent work of grad student John McNeill.
"It was a bit of a piece of luck, this discovery, as are many scientific discoveries."
The team theorise that the brown diamond rocketed to the surface during a volcanic eruption, hitchhiking in a stream of kimberlite, the deepest of all volcanic rocks.
Years of analysis, using spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction, were needed in specialised labs to confirm the find officially as ringwoodite.
Scientists have debated for decades about whether the transition zone has water, and if so, how much of the precious stuff there might be.
None, though, has embraced Verne's fancy of a subterranean sea with a rocky coastline dotted with forests of giant mushrooms and petrified trees.
Hans Keppler, a geologist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, cautioned against extrapolating the size of the subterranean water find from a single sample of ringwoodite.
And he also said the water was likely to be locked up in specific rocks, in a molecular form called hydroxyl.
"In some ways it is an ocean in Earth's interior, as visualised by Jules Verne... although not in the form of liquid water," Keppler said in a commentary also published by Nature.
The implications of the discovery are profound, Pearson suggested.
If water exists in huge volumes beneath Earth's crust, it is bound to have a big impact on the mechanics of volcanoes and the movement of tectonic plates.
"One of the reasons the Earth is such a dynamic planet is the presence of some water in its interior. Water changes everything about the way a planet works," said Pearson.
RELATED CONTENT
- Gem find 'confirms' water theory Press Association - 17 hours ago
- Zircon crystal oldest bit of Earth Press Association - Mon, Feb 24, 2014
- NASA announces 'mother lode' of new planets: 715 Associated Press - Wed, Feb 26, 2014
- Water Found in Atmosphere of Nearby Alien Planet SPACE.com - Wed, Feb 26, 2014
- Nasa announces new planets bonanzaPress Association - Thu, Feb 27, 2014
NEWS FOR YOU
Report: Chinese site may show plane debris images
10 hours agoAmazing video captures hippo saving a gnu from a crocodile
Tue, Mar 11, 2014
Limited Blogging Over the Next Month
My family and I are moving to a new base (I currently serve in the US Air Force). So don't expect much here over the next month! Sorry, just too much going on! I do plan to update with articles or cool videos when I can, but I will have little to no commentary. Thanks for reading, and may The Lord bless you!
Saturday, March 1, 2014
More Soft Dinosaur Tissue!
I referenced this discovery in my previous blog post
This is a very interesting interview with one of the men who discovered this soft tissue inside a triceratops horn. Evidence for recent dinosaur life keeps mounting!
Watch video
Soft Dinosaur Tissue: The 60 Minutes Interview.
This is a very interesting interview with one of the men who discovered this soft tissue inside a triceratops horn. Evidence for recent dinosaur life keeps mounting!
Watch video
Thursday, February 27, 2014
750 New Planets
Pretty sweet article from CNN. Before now, scientists only knew of 1000 of the planets God created. Well they just discovered 750 more! I believe these planets were placed here for the sole purpose of us discovering them and realizing how much detail the Creator had when He created the universe. God gave us a pretty sweet backyard for discovery and I think it is awesome we humans value it enough to have organizations like NASA to explore it!
Read article
Read article
Saturday, February 15, 2014
The Wazooloo Response to the Ham/Nye Debate
Ian Juby did a better job of breaking down the debate than I ever could have! I wish Ian had been up there with Ham or at least mic'd into Ham's ear! As Nye requested in the debate, Ian gives actual examples of critters swimming up through multiple rock layers (layers were mud at the time) leaving tunnels behind. This episode is chalk full of good responses to some of Nye's unanswered assertions and refutes or better explains his supposed evidence.
If only this commentary could be viewed by the 5 million people that watched the debate! Watch, like and share this episode of Genesis Week!
Watch the video here! And subscribe to wazooloo, Ian's YouTube channel.
If only this commentary could be viewed by the 5 million people that watched the debate! Watch, like and share this episode of Genesis Week!
Watch the video here! And subscribe to wazooloo, Ian's YouTube channel.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Nye vs. Ham Debate Dissected
Most estimate that at least 5 million people viewed the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate on Feb 4. Over 2.5 million people clicked the "play" button on YouTube from 190 different countries all interested to hear what the men had to say. This figure was significantly more than those who did the same for the President's recent State of the Union Address which also streamed on YouTube. Many of the 2.5 million viewers were not alone when they watched; there were many church gatherings, college events, and gatherings of family and friends across the nation. The debate trended number one on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. There was a lot of interest in the debate, to put it mildly. The origins debate is far from over in this nation.
Obviously neither men were going to change the others mind on these issues. They were appealing to their target audiences and Ken Ham's target happened to be everyone.
Although I thought Ham did an ok job of presenting creation as a viable model of origins, judging by the responses I have heard, he must not have done a good job. Ham did however present the gospel message and as Mark Spence from the daily YouTube show "The Comfort Zone" put it, "It's sad to see that people (Christians) will try to argue point by point or evidence for evidence, forgetting about the gospel. And that the gospel is the power of God onto salvation."
Perhaps in the future we will see a more scientific debate between say Ian Juby and an evolutionist. However, it is highly unlikely that any debate in the near future will generate this much publicity and viewership. This was the creationist's golden ticket. Ham made some strong arguments and showed that the Bible has answers to all of the pressing questions in regards to origins and the human condition. However, diepite a few great moments and points by Ham, the idea that was reinforced for most of creation's skeptics was that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. Now there were over 250,000 hits on the Answers in Genesis web site immediately following the debate, so perhaps those that were curious, took Ham's invitation to investigate the evidence for themselves. As For everyone else, I know I am even more determined to present them with evidence for creation and against evolution.
Why did this debate take place?
As I previously stated on my blog, both men had a message they wanted to get across to their target audience in order to work towards their respective goals. Bottom line up front (BLUF): both men succeeded. Nye's message was that science is a beautiful and exciting field to study. That we need young people to embrace future challenges and produce solutions with science. His target audience was Christians, voters in particular, who might be on the fence on the evolution topic. Ham had three target audiences with differing goals for each: young earth creationists--encouraging them to be "comfortable with science", old earth or theistic evolutionists who are believers--encouraging them to trust the Bible over secular science, and lastly he targeted people "on the outside" (as Nye put it) and encouraging them to seek answers in the Bible. I strongly believe that Ham was at a strategic disadvantage because he had to appeal to Bible believing Christians that sided with Nye as well as his other targets. This forced him to spend less time dealing with science and more time on what the Bible actually says and why we trust it. . Now, I am not trying to say that it is wrong for believers to side with Bill Nye the "Humanist Guy" on this topic, but I am sure it must be a little disconcerting for those believers to oppose and ridicule the one preaching the gospel and support the one representing humanism.Obviously neither men were going to change the others mind on these issues. They were appealing to their target audiences and Ken Ham's target happened to be everyone.
What Ham did well:
- Within the first few minutes of the debate Ham completely refuted Nye's notion that creationists cannot do good science. Before and throughout the debate Nye claimed that creationism is dangerous to our nation's scientific future. Ham used several video clips of creationists who practice science in the secular world. The strongest perhaps was Dr. Raymond Damadian, the co-inventor of the MRI machine who very emphatically expressed his belief in a 6,000 year old universe. Strangely, even after testimony from Dr. Damadian and other creationist scientists, Nye still continued to claim that creationists cannot do good science work. I suppose this is because this was Nye's primary point in the debate. After refuting this claim, Ham chose not to readdress it again.
- A primary point of emphasis by Ham was to display, through describing historical vs observational science, that there is a belief aspect to Nye's evolutionary thinking. Ham said, "There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past. Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can't prove either way observationally, because all we've got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews."“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99 - Ham out-did Nye with his presentation slides and media. The bumbling, science denying idiot, as many refer to Ham, presented a very modern, hi-tech display of his position. Nye's was effective as well, but as Michael Schulson from the Daily Beast stated, "He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views." Michael's article is very entertaining and I suggest you read it as well. He observed that the clearly smarter guy on stage was "oddly" the one claiming the earth is 6000 years old.
- In my mind, he who presents the gospel wins the debate every time. I know this is not true in many other people's minds, but allow me to summarize what Ham said after the debate. He said that nowhere is it stated that man's word will not return to him void, but it says that God's word will not return to Him void and that his gospel is the power of God unto salvation. As a Christian, I completely agree with him. Few wanted to hear a couple guys spout off scientific facts alone for 2 hours, anyway, so it was good that Ham presented the whole story.
- Ham had answers to Nye's wild curiosity over the origin of matter and the origin of human consciousness. Nye did a good job making his lack of answers sound exciting and romantic I believe people enjoy that type of attitude--to a degree. However, those two questions are loaded with repercussions: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Who/what am I? The two most memorable points in the debate came back-to-back after Nye had expressed his excited yet clueless wonder to these core questions. "Well, Bill, I have to tell you, there is a book out there, that does document where consciousness/matter came from." I believe evolution and atheism provide little to no hope to the human condition and reveals nothing to the purpose of life, and I thought Ham did a good job using subtle humor to contrast the two perspectives.
What Ham should have done better:
- Ken Ham's presentation had smatterings of scientific evidence of the bible being an accurate document. He explained how if the Bible were true, there are certain predictions that can be made and tested. He stated there should be evidence of a global flood, evidence of the Tower of Babel, one human race, and that creatures should produce after their own kind rather than produce new kinds. This type of information took up about 1% of his presentation time. Even after Nye challenged him to provide scientific evidence or predictions with his creation model, Ham did not oblige. Just 5 more minutes spent outlining a couple of the predictions and evidences he had listed on a slide he flashed occasionally, would have added significantly to his argument. He encouraged people to investigate and research the topics on the list for themselves--a great idea--but it seemed like he did not prepare to speak to any of the topics. This disappointed many creationists, myself included, and reinforced the skeptics perspective that "there is no scientific evidence for creation."
- At one point in the debate he tried to explain how a certain bacteria had not evolved a new metabolic capability as evolutionists claimed, but rather, already had the capability hardwired into their DNA. He stumbled over his words and seemed very uncomfortable speaking to the specifics of the study. I was not surprised by this as Ham typically leaves the science lectures and research to his PhD staff members and focuses more on the biblical aspects when he speaks to his typically Christian audience.
What Nye did well:
- Nye was very enthusiastic and did a good job of sounding open to new ideas creationists could provide evidence for. He stated that is we could give them just one fish that had managed to swim up from it's supposed sedimentary layer into another, evolution would fall apart and scientists would essentially throw him a parade out of gratitude for his amazing contribution. Ham should have obliged and presented him with the coelacanth and scheduled his parade. The coelacanth (pronounced SEEL-uh-kanth) was long believed to be the missing link between fish and land animals because of its fleshy fins and because it supposedly lived 410 million years ago. When I recently approached a living coelecanth off the coast of Africa for interview it declined to comment. The half leg half fins must have given the fish the ability to swim through all the layers. Contrary to what Nye said, evolution wouldn't fall apart with an out of order fossil or even thousands of out of order fossils. Evolution is not good science since it cannot be disproved. This is because the "theory" just rolls with the punches, saying, "Wow, who knew! Apparently this fossil had nothing to do with the origin of land dwellers." Or, "Wow, it is incredible that these fish have survived unchanged for millions of years in this tiny little colony while the rest of them sprouted legs and walked off." You see, Nye knew that whatever Ham threw his way, he could explain away. The evolution model requires belief and creativity in far greater quantity than evidence.
- Nye used a very good debate tactic in that he steam-rolled Ham. When one can quickly provide numerous objections, each of which requiring a long drawn out response, you will not get a response. He did this with numerous topics such as tree ages, distant starlight, and ice cores. These are issues that require long, technical papers to properly discuss. Some may view this tactic as cheap, but I don't believe it had any malicious intent behind it. He was merely naming off data as evidence of the universe being old. Ham should have done the same with young earth evidences such as the Grand Canyon, ocean salinity levels, the receding lunar orbit, planetary magnetic fields or any of the topics listed on his evidence slide.
- Nye did a good job pushing his agenda: more funding for science. I strongly support this goal as well. However, if Nye has it his way, there will be continued censorship of one side of the origins debate (obviously intelligent design is the censored side). This would not be good science, but state funded religious conquest. Luckily Ken Ham is right; we can disagree on matters of the past and still work together using science in the present.
- Nye did a good job of pointing out that Ham did not present good scientific evidence for a young earth.
What Nye did poorly:
- Perhaps this belongs in the category of what he did well: Nye did a good job of insulting the intelligence of Kentuckians. He basically said they preferred to have a cute little creation museum rather than a center for nuclear medicine. This claim was actually fact checked to be false anyway. He was already at odd with most people in the audience and he should not have alienated them more.
- I am still not sure on the point of his skull slide. He presented a slide with dozens of drawings of ape skulls and one that he claimed was human. He seemed to want the crowd of non-experts on skeletons to try to identify the human one. I believe his idea was to have people use their incredible human intellect to discover they were no different than animals. At least that non- experts would find that their heads are indistinguishable from apes on a screen 20-50 meters in distance. If Nye had an ape use his brain to pick out the human skull I would have been impressed.
- He was demeaning to Ham. Again, this may fall in the category of what he did well, depending on your perspective. In a debate that was very cordial and respectful, Nye's frequent "Ham's story, Ham's Flood" labeling of the biblical account was intentionally rude. He was not going to win points with those on Ham's side. He also kept referring to mainstream scientists as "those of us on the outside", an obvious attempt to make creationists sound like cultists. Though this is tame compared to the digs creationists are accustomed to receiving, I felt like they stuck out in this spirited by cordial debate.
- He did not do a good job of presenting the whole story about tiktaalik. He explained that based off the evolutionary model they made a prediction that they would find a fish growing legs in a certain rock layer. They found tiktaalik, a fish with boney, fleshy fins in the rock layer they searched. Nye did not mention that they have since found tracks laid down by land animals with fully formed toes "millions of years" before tiktaalik. This makes his claim invalid. Ham should have been prepared to call him out on this topic.
In
perhaps the most compelling moment of the debate, Nye and Ham were
confronted with the question. “How did consciousness come from matter?”
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
Final Thoughts
Scientists should not try to censor or shun creationist ideas and contributions. Two conflicting models or view points when compared to each other can only help to refine them.Although I thought Ham did an ok job of presenting creation as a viable model of origins, judging by the responses I have heard, he must not have done a good job. Ham did however present the gospel message and as Mark Spence from the daily YouTube show "The Comfort Zone" put it, "It's sad to see that people (Christians) will try to argue point by point or evidence for evidence, forgetting about the gospel. And that the gospel is the power of God onto salvation."
Perhaps in the future we will see a more scientific debate between say Ian Juby and an evolutionist. However, it is highly unlikely that any debate in the near future will generate this much publicity and viewership. This was the creationist's golden ticket. Ham made some strong arguments and showed that the Bible has answers to all of the pressing questions in regards to origins and the human condition. However, diepite a few great moments and points by Ham, the idea that was reinforced for most of creation's skeptics was that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. Now there were over 250,000 hits on the Answers in Genesis web site immediately following the debate, so perhaps those that were curious, took Ham's invitation to investigate the evidence for themselves. As For everyone else, I know I am even more determined to present them with evidence for creation and against evolution.