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 

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

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!
 

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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. 
 

Was Noah's Flood local or global?

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.

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:  

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. 

How did we arrive at this conviction
when the animal kingdom exists because of bullying?  

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.

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

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?

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. 
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.

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.