timeimmortal

Andrew Lamb writes in with a response to this article.

Hi (Kenneth ?)

In your posting on the biblical Flood you briefly mentioned geological evidence.

The sedimentary strata of the world have features that are highly consistent with rapid deposition by a global Flood, but hard to reconcile with slow-and-gradual scenarios.

These features include deep cross-bedding, uneroded interfaces between strata, the regional and even continental extent of some strata, the presence of fossils (without deep rapid burial dead organsims are scavenged and decay), the roughness of the constituent grains in many sandstones, etc.

One especially telling feature is the tightly bent yet still parallel strata in many mountain ranges. This indicate that the thick layers of sediment were wet and soft at the time they were deformed.

Other geological evidences for a global Flood include the ubiquitous phenomena of ‘water gaps’ and ‘underfit rivers’.

For details on these are other geological evidences of the global Flood, see the articles listed under the topic “Geology” in the Frequently Asked Questions index on the Creation Ministries International website, at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21.

Andrew Lamb

With apologies to both Andrew and Inigo Montoya, let me begin by saying: this evidence does not mean what you think it means. The plain fact is, while Andrew has furnished us with a wealth of evidence, he has ultimately furnished us with evidence that supports the conclusion that the Earth is old; it is only by twisting, misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the evidence presented that we can arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is young.

Let’s look at the different pieces of evidence provided, and see if they actually demonstrate what Andrew asserts that they do.

Extent of Strata

I’m not sure how the fact that some geological strata are very expansive is supposed to help the Young Earth position — if there were only one such layer, then that might be an argument for a flood deposition layer depending on the composition of it. Or, it might be an argument for, say, a fallout layer from a meteor impact long ago, again depending on the composition of it.

That more than one layer exists, however, and that these layers are often separated by other, more localized layers, actually argues against a global flood theory.

Fossils

The presence of fossils certainly doesn’t prove that the Earth is young. While it is more or less true that fossils can only form when creatures are rapidly and deeply buried, this hardly implies that a global flood is the cause of all or most fossils. Local mudslides would have a similar effect, as would other catastrophes in which large amounts of earth were suddenly shifted about. Many environmental catastrophes can set up the necessary conditions for fossilization.

What is more, other Young Earth arguments are imperiled by the argument Andrew makes above. If, for instance, the many dinosaur fossils we have discovered are the result of rapid sediment deposition during a global flood, then why do we not find human fossils in the same geological layers, apart from a handful of intances where a burial ceremony has resulted in a body being embedded, much later, in an ancient geological layer?

The fossil evidence argues — strongly — against the Young Earth position, and Young Earth fossil theories are often mutually contradictory.

Water Gaps

Water gaps are narrow openings or notches in mountain ranges through which a river once flowed.

A water gap is usually an indication of a river that is older than the current topography. The river likely established its course when the landform was at a low elevation, with a very low stream gradient and a thick layer of unconsolidated sediment. The river therefore established its channel without regard for the deeper layers of rock.

A renewed period of uplift caused increased erosion, removal of the overlying sediments and exposure of the underlying rock layers. Rejuvenated drainage caused streams to follow weaker layers of rock, but larger watercourses, as long as the uplift did not exceed the rate of erosion, were able to cut through the harder rocks which generally became ridges. Water gaps are common in the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians of eastern North America.

Alternatively, a water gap can be formed through headward erosion of two streams on opposite sides of a ridge, ultimately resulting in the capture of one stream by the other.

This is a process that would play out over a long period of time. As I previously noted: the evidence of water gaps does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of these gaps — the products of millions of years of erosion — is actually an argument for a very old Earth. A quickly-receding global flood could not have carved these gaps; there is simply no means by which water could displace that much rock and sand in such a short amount of time, unless we are to assume that the entirety of the world’s surface was essentially loose soil and sand a few thousand years ago.
Read the rest of this entry »

“Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” — St. Augustine of Hippo

There’s an interesting study one can do in the Book of Genesis, if one has a few minutes to spare and the inclination to copy, paste, and then read a few passages of text.

First, open a text editor window (Notepad on Windows, Text Edit on Mac OS X, whatever…). Now, find your preferred online version of Genesis, and copy the following verses into the text editor window:

Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7-8, 7:10, 7:12,7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, and 8:20-22

Once that’s done, open a new text editor window (keep the first one open too), and copy the following verses into the second window:

Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24-8:2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-19

Once that’s done, read the contents of the first text editor window through in their entirety. Then read the contents of the second window through, also from start to finish.

Now…what do you see?

Well, if you followed the instructions properly, you’ll see that the first window contains something like this:

Genesis 6

[5] The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[6] And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
[7] So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
[8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Genesis 7

[1] Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

[2] Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate;
[3] and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.
[4] For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
[5] And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him.

[7] And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,

[10] And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

[12] And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

[16b] and the LORD shut him in.
[17] The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

[22] everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
[23] He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8

[2b] the rain from the heavens was restrained,
[3] and the waters receded from the Earth continually.

[6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made,

[8] Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;
[9] but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
[11] and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
[12] Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more.

[13b] and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.

[20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

[21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

This is a complete flood account, one of two that are actually present in the Book of Genesis. Note that it is a complete account, giving an essentially unbroken narrative of the events of the flood, from the first moment the Lord noticed the sinfulness of humanity and elected to blot it out, to the final blessing and promise, to Noah and his family, from the Lord.

Note, also, the prominent use of only one name by which God is referred to: the LORD. This is an important stylistic device to consider, and we’ll look at why that is shortly. First, though, let’s look at a few other stylistic devices in the text. We note that the Lord expresses regret for having made humanity (6:6), and that His heart aches (6:6 as well) at their wickedness. We note, also, that he smells an offering (8:21) and that within His heart, He speaks (8:21 as well). These are very anthropomorphic statements, and present the Lord as a very personal, present God intimately involved and interested in the life and doings of His creations.

Note also that there are distinctions made between clean and unclean animals (7:2,8), and that there is a significant, repeated ordering of the animals in this account — from man, to animal, to crawling things, to birds (6:7, 7:23).

Finally, note that the numbers 7 and 40 percolate through the text (7:2,3,4,10,12,17; 8:6,10,12).

Biblical scholarship attributes this flood account, which presents a personal and present image of Go, to an author that is called the Jahvist (Yahwist). Principally, the author is called by this term because he only ever refers to God by means of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which is translated into English as “the LORD” in these passages. However, it should also be noted that this author focuses on the ritual significance of animals in the order of creation, so much so that he even distinguishes between clean and unclean animals (although it should be noted that until the time of Moses, who came well after Noah, it had not been strictly defined which animals were considered unclean).

So that’s one account. In contrast, here is what the Reader should have ended up with in the second text window:
Read the rest of this entry »

After reading the text of Palin’s speech, I think it’s pretty clear that this could prove to be an interesting election after all…and something of a first. Well, obviously it’s a first, given that Palin stands a good chance of being the first woman to hold such a high office in America.

She’s Margaret Thatcher with five kids and a Klondike drawl.

But more than that, there’s something interesting emerging here, a trend of sorts. At least based on what we’ve seen so far, this could well be the first election in which a presidential candidate, in essence, ends up running against his opponent’s vice-presidential pick. The face-off that seems to be shaping up is not between John McCain and Barrack Hussein Obama, but between Sarah Palin and Obama.

Which is damned odd, to be sure. But also damned interesting.

Anyhow, the Anchoress has a roundup of reactions to Palin’s speech, which seems to have liberal-minded folks all in a panic…as well it should, given how sharp some of its observations were:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” [a position Obama held in Chicago, and which constitutes a large portion of his resumé — Ken] except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Also, I suddenly find that I like Dr. Phil McGraw a bit more, after his excellent smackdown of David Letterman’s poo-pooing of Bristol Palin.

Guest “Dr. Phil” on Wednesday night chastised David Letterman’s misunderstanding of teenage sexual behavior and parental influence after Letterman sarcastically complained that if a President McCain “drops dead…don’t you want your President to have had the presence of mind to have chatted to her teenaged kids for five minutes about birth control?” (Letterman delivered the same belittling joke the night before too.)

Referring to Letterman’s almost five-year-old son, daytime TV host Phil McGraw, aka “Dr. Phil,” informed Letterman:

Let me tell you something, new dad. If you are under the misapprehension that when Harry is 17 that you are going to have even a remote influence on what he decides in the back seat of a Chevy on a Saturday night — I don’t think old Dave’s going to be popping in his mind at that point. It’s not a 15-minute conversation. It’s a dialogue that you need to have starting when he’s about eight or nine.

Undeterred from his contempt for Sarah Palin, Letterman asked: “Then why didn’t they have the dialogue?” McGraw suggested: “Maybe they did. But when children get that age, at 17 — see, here’s the thing. The body’s grown but the brain is not.” Letterman soon sneered: “They don’t sell Trojans in Alaska? Come on,” prompting McGraw to point out: “Wasn’t Barack’s mother like 18 when he was born?” Indeed she was.

And over at his blog, Vox Day observes that the (liberal) media has no clue how the heck they should respond to Palin:

First, they were all taken completely by surprise when McCain made the most obvious and effective choice for vice-president. Second, they actually thought conservatives and the religious right would somehow be turned off by a pregnant girl marrying the father of her child and having the baby! Here’s a little secret for the irreligious Left: religious people not only believe that sin exists, they believe that everyone engages in it. True, it’s best to avoid sin, but the far more important thing is how you attempt to amend for your errant actions when you, like everyone else, fall short of perfection.

Now they’re all surprised that a woman whose nickname is “Barracuda”, who compares her kind of woman to a pitbull, who took on and beat the corrupt old boys of Republican politics in Alaska, should turn out to be an effective attack dog. Whoever could have imagined it?

This is why I don’t read much political commentary except as a guide to what the clueless parrots will be repeating. With a few exceptions, it’s almost completely useless.

This was shaping up to be a boring election, an unstimulating contest between Tweedledum and Tweedlenotsodum. Indeed, I’d barely been paying attention to it. Now, though, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And I am loving — loving — watching the supposed champions of women’s rights and tolerance (a.k.a. “the Left”) soil their trousers and abandon all pretense in response to McCain’s running mate. I mean, when people openly admit their intent to lie their asses off in order to take Palin down by any means necessary, and when people openly opine about how tearing a family apart is a small price to pay to avert “a disaster” (e.g. a Republican victory in the coming election), you know they are scared.

As in: pants thrice-soaked, fight-or-run-for-your-damned-life-flight scared. The Left has come unhinged over this. Un. HINGED.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission hasn’t quite gotten to that point, and so is not quite on par with e.g. the government of Iran. However, it should be noted that the lengths that the AHRC is demanding that Christians go to in order to distribute materials or host a teaching retreat certainly smacks of the various controls and pressures that the Soviet state exerted on the Russian churches.

Consider:

The couple was very concerned about their freedoms here in Canada because they’re offering a teaching on Biblical sexuality that is based in the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) and a small part of their teaching does address homosexuality as sin. They were thinking about cancelling due to risk of prosecution but I encouraged them to keep it in the church and they should be ok. Still apprehensive, the couple decided to contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission to enquire about the legalities surrounding their presentation. You can read the phone log of the conversation with Ralph Roman an officer of the AHRC below.

An interesting point here is that this couple was advised by Ralph Roman to get a lawyer to draft a consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public.” …PLUS…, she was advised to have the curriculum reviewed by the Police. Ralph Roman went on to inform her that even with a consent form there was still no guarantee that a complaint could not be filed IF someone was offended….like a teacher for instance.

…

He said the following recommendations were the responsibility of the people who invited me, not my responsibility.

2. Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the human rights Laws.

…

4. The church needs to contact the education people and take a curriculum of the program and demonstrate that it is an educational program that is not unwelcome by the group there and everyone is there by consent. Also, the church needs to ask the education people if a license is required. At this point Ralph was uncertain and seemed to think a license would be helpful if problems occurred.

5. The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.

I told Ralph I would be dealing with the “hookup mentality” of this generation and teaching abstinence. He said that is a religious belief that lots of people have, but it cannot be forced on anyone and not taught to anyone who is not a part of the group.

I then told Ralph that the church had already distributed a CD of mine to each of their families to prepare for the retreat that had some statements on it about homosexuals. He said that they needed a consent form from each family that this was not unwelcome material and that their kids would not be talking about any of it in the schools.

Welcome to Alberta. You have papers, yes? Papers please!

So now it appears that it is legitimate for the state (here taken to mean the province of Alberta) to infringe upon, and to regulate, religious expression, subjecting each and every aspect of it to supervision and approval by the relevant state organ?

Good gravy…what country is this?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

“I am not a fan of self-indulgence. I have contempt for those who yield sovereignty of their reason to their appetites.”

Shivers, I tell you, O Reader. Shivers.

The actual discussion centers on Morality, and whether moral rules concern only those things which are external (i.e. actions and consequences thereof) or internal things as well (thoughts, desires). The Christian response is that morality necessarily deals with both the internal and the external — as Wright himself points out, “hatred is immoral as murder, lust as immoral as adultery.”

His opposite in the discussion asserts that internal morality does not exist. This would seem to be a contravention of the basic human capability to reason out a conclusion based on observable evidence, even if only from within his or her own life: ask any married person who has seen a particularly attractive member of the opposite gender and had a most vivid fantasy about a chance dalliance, or ask any person who has ever been enraged what sort of calculated physical cruelty he or she had imagined on the person that had made him or her so cross.

Of course, in our debased society, men and women often find it too much of a trial to resist physical, external temptations, and the thought of outward morality alone is an almost unspeakable burden. To suggest that one’s internal state should be similarly regulated is, to them, entirely too much to ask. “I can’t help what I think or feel,” the argument may go.

It’s a bollocks argument, of course…but it has a surprising grip on the thoughts of many people.

“Are there temptations men cannot resist? Perhaps so. Men are weak. Are we excused from the duty to resist temptation merely because temptation often wins? Oh, Hercules! Are we allowed to throw down sword and shield and flee the battle merely because the Persian outnumber us, and their horns and flags and brave plumes daunt us? Is it not nobler, whether victory or defeat awaits, to close ranks, ready the spear, and rally to the standard to which we are pledged? Cowardice is unbecoming both in battles of the flesh, and of the spirit.”

The term “die trying” is crude and not entirely accurate, but it will suffice as a descriptor of the proper approach to mounting a moral resistance against temptation. That we may — or that we most likely will — fail is no reason to allow the temptation to have its day; to the very last moment, the moral person must rail against his or her being drawn in to sin.