Search This Blog

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Faster-Than-Expected Geological Processes

The default position of secular geologists is slow and gradual (uniformitarian) processes over millions of years gave us the landforms and things that we see today. Except when the evidence is inescapable and rapid processes were involved, then they reluctantly refer to those.

Secular geologists tend to say things take a long time, but they are surprised by rapid and recent activity that can be observed.
New thermal area at Yellowstone National Park
Image credit: USGS / Michael Poland (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Many things that geologists say took millions of years do not fit the evidence and cannot be explained through uniformitarian means. We have seen on this site alone many instance where the catastrophic deluge of the Genesis Flood provides a far better framework. More than that, there are geological processes that can be observed in the here and now.
  • Pumice from an underwater volcano filled a huge area of ocean
  • Salt Crystals in the Dead Sea accumulate quickly, and may explain other large salt deposits that were attributed to millions of Darwin years
  • Yellowstone's thermal areas and caldera activity were attributed to thousands of years, but a new on happened just recently
You can read more about these and one other item by clicking on "Geological Processes Can Be Rapid".

Sunday, September 22, 2019

Biologists Surveyed, Life Begins at Conception

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article will be a mite different, since the inspiration came from a news source that has no real interest in creation science. Biblical creationists, however, have maintained for a long time that life begins at conception. Medical science has demonstrated this fact numerous times.

A study shows that most biologists in the USA believe that life begins at conception. The researcher had some unexpected findings about atheists and leftists as well.
Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero
Steven Jacobs was doing research for his doctorate. He asked many Americans of various political and religious views about who to ask regarding the beginning of life, and the questions did not seem biased or loaded. (This is far better than leftist-biased "surveys" where people asked opinions of their cronies in the bar after work or something.) The majority believed that biologists should be the ones to answer that question. Philosophers and theologians did not score as well.

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of biologists believe that life begins at conception, which is in line with a previous study that also showed how most Americans also believe the same way. There is a problem in academia nowadays where professors and such are overwhelmingly on the political left and are atheist or have liberal religious views.

Some of these respondents were hostile to the innocuous questions, even showing hatred for God and Christians. They were reading things into the straightforward questions that were nonexistent, and circling the wagons to hinder Dr. Jacobs' intellectual, academic, and speech freedoms. Ever notice how atheists are usually on the political left? Both groups are opposed to things of God, such as marriage between a man and a woman, the sanctity of life, and more.

People are often unwilling to respond to logic and evidence. In this case, they know that abortion is murder and simply do not care. (Try to tell them that we are created in the image of God, not just evolved animals, and they'll want to slap leather with you.) The presuppositions of misotheists and anti-creationists are displayed in the things they endorse and the principles they oppose. These people need to humble themselves and repent before the Creator and Redeemer.

To see the article that inspired this one, click on "Study: 96% of 5,577 Biologists Say Human Life Begins at Fertilization". You may also like to see "Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use". By the way, the remarks at the very end of this music video are very startling:

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Pterosaur Illustration and the Flood

Someone who wants to create a realistic illustration is likely to use surroundings that are authentic. Something that is used to represent historical matters are expected to have things that are appropriate to the period; no cowboys on horses firing ray guns, for instance. The same would apply to biblical illustrations.

A pterosaur illustration in 1863 about the Genesis Flood includes a surprising item. This raises some interesting points for Christians to  consider.
Made with PhotoFunia
Let's take a few more steps back. An illustration of the Genesis Flood would indicate animals that the artist expected to be alive at the time — especially if he believes the Bible. Way back in 1863, Edward Burne-Jones made a bit of art depicting Noah's Ark just after the Flood. While there are several errors in it. (Also, this one by Paul Gustave Louis Christophe Doré is gruesome, and there should be no bodies after the Flood, but the Ark looks good). Burne-Jones had some points in his favor as well. 

But why a pterosaur in the art? It's not like he saw on for himself, but he had access to information about such things. Apparently, he wanted to show that this critter was living at the time of the Flood. Also, the Ark itself is rather good, not like the silly stuff that people use to entertain children. Misrepresentations of the Ark or any other biblical history make it seem like just a story, and that's no good.
Have you ever thought about drawing an image of the events surrounding the global Flood of Noah? If so, what would you include in your depiction, assuming contemporary knowledge of animals that lived during that period? Would you include extinct kinds of animals such as dinosaurs, dicynodonts and pterosaurs, or only those alive today? To help explore these questions a case-in-point comes from a nineteenth century drawing recently on display in the Tate Britain Art Museum, London, entitled “Noah receiving the dove back onto the Ark” (1863).1 It was drawn with pen on a wooden block by English artist Edward Burne-Jones (1833–1898). Considered one of the last Pre-Raphaelites, before becoming an artist he had intended to become a Christian minister. His depiction of the Ark and what is floating in the flood water prompts several points worth discussing.
To continue reading, click on "A pterosaur in the Flood waters? — Artistry and being consistent with the Biblical text".

Sunday, September 08, 2019

Biblical Counseling and Creation Face Similar Opposition

As we have explained numerous times, biblical creationists and adherents of universal common ancestor evolution have the same evidence. Likewise, those who believe in deep time and recent creation have the same evidence; it is not theirs versus ours. Evidence is interpreted according to our presuppositions. There are surprisingly similar difficulties encountered with biblical counseling.

Creation science and biblical counseling face similar obstacles from those who do not realize that both secularists and Christians have the same facts available. Facts are interpreted according to presuppositions.
Credit: RGBStock / Dez Pain
Like with creation science, opponents of biblical counseling get all het up about "facts", but they are opinions and interpretations of observations. Creationists who add evolution do violence to the gospel message, and secular psychology has an evolutionary core which gives secularists a passel of problems. Biblical counselors approach the facts with God's Word as the ultimate standard, rejecting the idea that we are just modified pond scum.
Evolutionists have created a cottage industry out of accusing creationists of being committed to magic rather than science. Such epithets miss the point. Both sides of the debate traffic in facts, but interpret those facts based on different sources of authority that inform their worldview commitments.
. . .
When it comes to counseling, the debate between those committed to biblical counseling (as I am) and those committed to other approaches concerns whether the Bible is sufficient to inform the counseling task, or whether psychology provides a crucial adjunct to the conversations that happen in counseling. Those who believe that the Bible is not sufficient for counseling, and who argue for the necessary inclusion of psychological methods in counseling, point to the science of psychology to buttress their claim.
To read the entire article or download the MP3, click on "Biblical Counseling—Common Cause with Creation".

Sunday, September 01, 2019

Blue Eyes and Evolutionary Racism

Evolutionary dogma was used to justify the false idea of scientific racism, and the idea that blue eyes are a mutation were a part of that concept. Although Darwinists have attempted to skedaddle from the idea that lighter-skinned people are more highly evolved, the belief is still a pillar of evolution. You can't hide your lyin' racist evolution eyes.

Although evolutionists try to distance themselves from their racist dogma, it persists. One place is the refuted idea that blue eyes are a mutation from brown.
Credit: Freeimages / Ne¾a Èerin
Seems that when people are tearing down statues of people in the past who were considered racists, they would also pull down statues of Papa Darwin. Maybe have him disinterred from Westminster Abbey and dump him in the Thames. But no, evolution is a pillar of the left and is used to promote certain agendas.

Centuries ago, my eyes were blue, but became the steel grey they are now. My wife's eyes are startlingly blue; she even compared the color to that of the Siberian Husky. Her color never changed from childhood. 

The evolution story maintains that since we emerged out of Africa, we would have brown eyes because of our putative apelike ancestors. Digging into genetics, scientists have learned that eye color is complicated. It comes from pigment, genetic switches, and is not a mutation at all. It is actually part of the variety programmed into us by the Master Engineer. 
When it comes to the history of basic human traits, an evolutionary myth about eye color often pops up. The secular story maintains that blue eyes are the result of a genetic mutation that occurred in the recent evolutionary history of modern humans. This narrative is rooted in the belief that modern humans originally evolved from dark-skinned, dark-eyed ancestors from Africa. As the story goes, a mutation occurred when humans migrated into more northerly climates where the trait was supposedly favored by the lower-light environment. But, as I’ve discussed in previous articles, this out-of-Africa idea is contradicted by both genetic and linguistic data.
I hope y'all see it clear to read the rest, just click on "Are Blue Eyes in Humans a Mutation?"