Color Me Curious
untitled
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

pixel skylines
almost home
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
EXPECTATIONS
cherry valley forever
Noah Kahan

tannertan36
Fieri Frames
occasionally subtle
Not today Justin

Jimmy Eat World

No title available
Claire Keane
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Cosmic Funnies

#extradirty
YOU ARE THE REASON

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Chile
seen from Israel

seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from Philippines
@christapologia
by Ken Ham and Mark Looy Christian education is under attack in America as never before. Yesterday on this website, we highlighted the plight of the Romeikes , a German Christian family who is seek...
Does the Bible Tell Christians to Judge Not?
We live in a world that increasingly strives to (supposedly) promote the idea of tolerance, but actually becomes intolerant of Christian absolutes as it does so.Whether it involves religion, behavior, or human sexuality, there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment in America and other Western nations. Ultimately, built into this “tolerance” is the concept that truth is determined by each individual, not by God. This has led many people to conclude that making judgments on anyone (especially coming from Christians) is wrong because the Bible says ”judge not” (Matthew 7:1 ). Interestingly enough, those who reject the notion of God or the credibility of the Bible often attempt to use God’s Word (e.g., by quoting verses out of context) to excuse their actions when they are presented with the gospel and the plight of sinners for rejecting it.
The Authority on Judging
Scripture makes it very clear that there is one supreme Judge of all—the Lord God—and that He alone has the authority to determine right and wrong motives and behaviors.
Many Old Testament passages attest to the truth of God as Judge:
God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. (Psalm 7:11 )
He shall judge the world in righteousness, and he shall administer judgments for the people in uprightness. (Psalm 9:8 )
Let the heavens declare His righteousness, for God himself is Judge. Selah(Psalm 50:6 )
For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us. (Isaiah 33:22 )
The Old Testament is rife with passages that establish God as the ultimate Judge. When we come to the New Testament, we find that the Father has committed authority and judgment to the Son. Jesus spoke of this authority before He ascended to heaven after the Resurrection (Matthew 28:18 ).
“For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.”(John 5:22 )
“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.” (John 12:46–48 )
Because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:31 )
As these passages and many others demonstrate, the Bible makes it very clear that one day Jesus will rightly judge all humanity based on each individual’s faith in—or rejection of—the Son of God. For a world filled with people who believe in moral relativism—and for many professing Christians who practice morality in an attempt to earn righteousness—this day will be filled with fear and trepidation. The Judge of the universe has made a judgment about salvation, echoed by the Apostle Peter in Acts 4:12 : “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” There will be no time to debate whether the judgment is right or wrong because the ultimate Judge has decreed His justice through the Son.
Let us consider the idea of judging as it relates to believers and unbelievers. The methods are different when dealing with these two groups, but the goal is reconciliation. Unbelievers need to know Christ and be reconciled to Him, and believers need to grow in Christ and be reconciled to each other.
How Judging Relates to Unbelievers
When a Christian lovingly and graciously presents the gospel to unbelievers, a judgment is made regarding their standing with God. The Bible clearly declares that all men are sinners, have fallen short of the glory of God, and are in need of redemption from their sins (Romans 3:23 ). This judgment is not made from the opinion of the Christian who is presenting the gospel but rather by what the Bible clearly declares.
The claim that Christians are not to judge is often made when dealing with issues such as abortion, adultery, homosexual behavior, and same-sex marriage.When a Christian says, for example, that homosexual behavior is a sin and that same-sex marriage is wrong, he or she is often met with objections like the following:
“Who are you to judge two people who love each other?”
“Who do you think you are, telling someone who they can and cannot love?You’re a sinner, too!”
“Someone’s private life is none of your business. Don’t judge them.”
Some people will even quote Matthew 7:1 , where Christ said during the Sermon on the Mount, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Of course, when they quote this verse in regard to such situations, they take it out of context to support their fallacious claims. When we consider the concept of judging, especially as it relates to the Sermon on the Mount, Christ tells us to be discerning, not condemning.
There are significant logical problems with the claim that believers should not make judgments. The first becomes evident when we read the context ofMatthew 7:1 .
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1–5 )
Here, Christ is warning believers against making judgments in a hypocritical or condemning manner. That type of judging is a characteristic often associated with the Pharisees during the ministry of Jesus. Many people who quote “judge not” from Matthew 7:1 fail to notice the command to judge in Matthew 7:5 , when it says, “Then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” The point Jesus emphasizes here is to judge yourself first before you make judgments about others. (Also, notice the discernment and judgment required in Matthew 7:15–16 , 20 .) In the broader context, Jesus is telling believers to be discerning when it comes to false teaching and false prophets because they “look” Christian, but their goal is to lead the flock astray (Matthew 7:15–20 ;Luke 6:43–45 ).
As Christians, we should be living godly lives so that we can first concentrate on our own repentance of sin. Sanctification is a lifelong process of being transformed every day into the image of Christ. Without this, we have no place in helping another brother or sister. What Christ teaches His believers in Matthew 7 is that if we ourselves are not personally repenting of our sins, we are in no place to tell others how sinful they are acting. But the Bible does tell us to preach the gospel—and part of the gospel message is that people are sinners in need of salvation.
How Judging Relates to Fellow Believers
We often hear claims from Christians that we are not to make judgments about other believers, especially as it relates to their erroneous teachings on Genesis.Again, the Matthew 7:1 passage is used as a justification for this type of attitude. Now, the ministry of Answers in Genesis acknowledges that there are many Christian pastors and leaders who sincerely have a love for the Lord Jesus Christ. These men have led many to Christ, work diligently with much perseverance for the kingdom of God, and minister to the hurting and sick—all because they have been transformed by the finished work of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead. However, just like the rest of us, they are fallible and can fall into error, even regarding the issue of origins.
Scripture provides many examples of how God’s people can be in error, dating back to (and before) the kings of Israel and Judah. Out of the 39 rulers in Israel and Judah after the time of Solomon, only eight of them (1 Kings 1–2, all from Judah) tried to reverse the evil their predecessors had introduced into the kingdom. Only eight of them saw the depravity around them and tried to do something about it. However, these godly kings had failures as well. These eight kings have their histories tarnished because they failed to take down the high places (1 Kings 15:11 , 14 ; 22:43 ; 2 Kings 12:2–3 ; 14:3–4 ; 15:3–4 , 34–35 ).Upon entering Canaan, the Israelites were commanded to destroy everything, including pagan places of worship on high mountains. Rather than destroy them, the Israelites made them into additional worship centers, contrary to what they had been commanded by God. Even the godliest of people are capable of falling into error.
The core message of Answers in Genesis is one of defending biblical authority and proclaiming the gospel, which brings controversy when it comes to the topic of judging. For instance, in addition to dealing with the issues above from a biblical perspective, Answers in Genesis points out that there are many Christians (including Christian leaders) who add millions of years, evolution, or both to Scripture. We expose this compromise not to make harsh judgments about the person or his spiritual walk, but to show the inconsistency (as we all can be) of a Christian leader towards Genesis—and the negative implications that it can have on the rest of Scripture.
Now, the ministry of AiG is dedicated to upholding the authority of the Bible and giving answers to point out that such compromise positions are really undermining God’s Word and its authority. When AiG does that, we are often told that we are unloving and that we should not be making judgments about others by pointing out errors in their teaching regarding Genesis.
Some people take offense and say that as believers, we should focus on loving others and not be divisive. We are, however, divisive if we do not correct error.Are we working toward the “unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13 ), or are we compromising God’s Word by allowing for the world’s “wisdom”? Remember, as believers we are all part of “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5 ). We must establish our foundation in the truth of God’s Word and not our own philosophies, making God the authority over our life. Having the right foundation will help us to know the difference between truth and lies as well as right and wrong. Paul explained the need for truth and the divisive nature of lies in the following passage:
That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:14–16 )
Are we being loving if we allow our fellow brethren to remain in error and even deceive others? Of course not. Loving others requires that we graciously correct them when they fall into error (Matthew 18 ; 1 Corinthians 1:11 ; Galatians 6:1). Those who err do not necessarily know they are in error; they are possibly deceived or ignorant. So we gently and carefully correct the error in regard to teaching, no matter what the situation. After all, this is one of the responsibilities of the church: to teach sound doctrine and correct erroneous teaching (2 Timothy 2:25 , 3:16 ; Titus 2:1 ). For example, we have to use discernment (judging between right and wrong) if we are to obey verses like 1 Corinthians 5:11–13 ; 6:4 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ; 1 Timothy 6:20 ; and Titus 3:9, just to name a few.
We need to be careful in this approach, however, as we are all fallible human beings who can make mistakes in judgment. We should find out the whole story and not base our judgment on appearances. Jesus stated, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24 ).Notice the Lord’s command to judge. But before we make that judgment, we must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion. Sometimes hard judgment calls must be made, as not everything is “black and white,” which is why it is so important to know and apply the truth of Scripture.
It’s also important when discussing such difficult issues to explain, as a Christian, why we take the stand we do. For instance, when asked about same-sex marriage, we can explain that Christians should build their thinking on the Bible, and therefore we should go to God’s Word to see what He clearly instructs us. Then we use His Word to make a judgment about the issue. We can also explain that if someone does not believe that God’s Word is the foundation for their worldview, then we can understand why they disagree. So, we have two different starting points (or foundations), and thus two different worldviews that conflict and therefore make judgments of each other. But in every instance, we must stress that all sin can be forgiven in the work of Christ on the Cross.
Realistically, people make judgments all the time. Now, if one person commits murder, should a Christian look at that action and say, “That was wrong because God’s Word says not to murder,” or should he say, “I’m not supposed to make a judgment”? And what if someone steals from you? Would you say, “That was wrong because God’s Word says not to steal,” or would you say, “I’m not supposed to make a judgment”? Furthermore, when someone tells us that we need to stop judging others, they have actually just judged us. So they are guilty of doing the very thing they tell us not to do.
We make judgments on various teachings and ideas every day, including our own. The biblical mentality of making judgments applies to any situation where a person is openly committing an error against God and His Word—whether that person is living in sin, such as adultery or homosexual behavior, or compromising God’s Word and causing others to stumble and doubt His Word.We even make judgments of our children’s actions as we work to help them see their sinful condition before God, and point them to the gospel, in order that they might be saved and grow in obedience to God and His Word.
The key is making righteous judgments so that we can point people to the gospel. God’s Word gives us a clear standard to abide by, and the Holy Spirit guides us in what is right, wrong, true, and false. In order to make judgments righteously, we should be striving to live righteously and allowing the Word of God to be our foundation in every area of our thinking.
Conclusion: Biblical Perspective of “Judge Not ”
Those people who call for tolerance and quote “judge not” out of context are not using sound thinking. Their call for tolerance is impossible because as Christians, we are called to judge righteously, and judging between right and wrong is something we do every day—and it should be a part of biblical discernment in every believer’s thinking. But it is God’s Word that makes the judgment on morality and truth, not our own opinions or theories.
What’s the purpose of judging error in a biblical manner? The church is to be built on the foundation of Christ and the authority of His Word (Ephesians 2:20)—and that means believers should examine their own lives regularly and also lovingly challenge Christian brothers and sisters who are in error or commit sin.To do this, believers must be bold for Christ, but they also have to be humble, loving, and kind. We encourage you to keep these things in mind as you strive daily to maintain unity in the truth of Christ (John 17:20–26 ).
The power of prayer: Believing in God can help treat depression
New research has found that people who believe in a higher power respond better to psychiatric treatment
ByRachel Reilly
A strong faith in a higher power has been shown to improve mental health
Belief in God may improve treatment for those suffering with depression, says a new study.
Faith in a higher being has been found to significantly improve treatment for people suffering with a psychiatric illness, according to research carried out by McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts.
Researchers followed 159 patients over the course of a year at the Behavioral Health Partial Hospital program at McLean to investigate the relationship between a patient's level of belief in God, expectations for treatment and actual treatment outcomes.
Each participant was asked to gauge their belief in God as well as their expectations for treatment outcome on a five-point scale.
Levels of depression, wellbeing, and self-harm were assessed at the beginning and end of their treatment program.
Researchers found that patients with 'no' or only 'slight' belief in God were twice as likely not to respond to treatment than patients with higher levels of belief.
And more than 30 per cent of patients claiming no specific religious affiliation still saw the same benefits in treatment if their belief in God was rated as moderately or very high.
Researchers concluded that a belief in God is associated with improved treatment outcomes in psychiatric care.
The study, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, said : 'Our work suggests that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Belief was associated with not only improved psychological wellbeing, but a decrease in depression and intention to self-harm, explained David Rosmarin, McLean Hospital clinician and instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical.
He added: 'I hope that this work will lead to larger studies and increased funding in order to help as many people as possible.'
Previous studies have highlighted the power of prayer on a person's health.
Alone: Psychiatric disorders can be very isolating for the sufferer but a belief in God can help, say researchers
Research at San Francisco General Hospital monitored the effects of prayer on 393 cardiac patients.
Patients were asked if they wanted to take part in the trial but were not told whether they would be the subject of prayers.
Half were prayed for by a group of strangers who only had the patients' names.
Those who were prayed for had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia and needed less drug treatment.
They also improved more quickly and were able to leave hospital earlier.
A separate study, at Columbia University in New York, asked people in Australia, the U.S. and Canada to pray for named people undergoing IVF treatment in Korea.
Of the group in Korea, half had prayers said about them by the foreign strangers.
Among this half, the success rate for implantation of the embryo in the womb went up from 8 per cent to 16 per cent.
Cases of successful conception - where the foetus started developing - went up from 25 to 50 per cent.
GOD PARTICLES IN PARTICULAR
We received a message yesterday, which was presumably not from one of our supporters. It read “The Higgs Boson is a much greater blow to your beliefs than Darwin’s theory, good luck and welcome to the age of science.” Let me explain why such a comment is particularly foolish.
What is a Higg’s Boson? A boson is an elementary particle, predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. All other such predicted particles have been discovered. The Higg’s Boson was the last one. This suggests that the Standard Model is a pretty good working model! Good observational science involves such elements as developing hypotheses, making testable predictions, then carrying out fair tests to verify these predictions, then adapting or rejecting the original hypothesis accordingly, if necessary. So the experiment that “observed” this Higg’s Boson would appear to be an example of good science. However, the hype surrounding it, including its rather blasphemous nickname, is an example of bad science.
Einstein’s theories of relativity explain why particles moving fast possess mass. The difficulty physicists have had is explaining why particles at rest sometimes have mass. The physicist Peter Higgs suggested that a field exists, which could interact with particles, thus producing the phenomenon known as mass. This field is now known as the Higg’s Field. The reason for the nickname is that journalists and other “popularizers” have assumed that the particle produced by this field interaction—the Higg’s Boson—somehow magically “gives” mass to other particles. This is not so, and most serious particle physicists are embarrassed by the nickname.
Furthermore, those physicists who believe in the Big Bang theory suppose that this field would have caused this interaction at the point of the expansion of the singularity. It is indeed logical to state that IF there were a Big Bang, then this would be the case. Readers should note that a logical progression—obeying the laws of logic—does not imply that something is true. Something can be completely logical yet untrue if the original presupposition is untrue. In this case, the original presupposition is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is untrue, and it is worth mentioning that it is not only Christians and creationists who do not believe in the Big Bang. A significant minority of secular physicists do not accept the Big Bang either. The key word in the logical statement above is the word “if.”
Here is an example to illustrate what I mean: When I grew up in Manchester, England, there were two large professional soccer teams in the city (there still are!) called Manchester United, who usually play in red, and Manchester City, who usually play in blue. So, if you knew that a certain child was a Manchester United supporter, then you would expect to see him wearing a red soccer shirt, not a blue one. If, on the other hand, you saw a child wearing a red soccer shirt in Manchester, you might assume that he was a United supporter. Your assumption might be wrong. He and his family might have been visiting Manchester for the day from nearby Liverpool, whose eponymous soccer team also plays in red. The assumption that the wearing of a red soccer shirt proves that the boy is a United supporter is illogical.
In the same way, it is logical to state that, if the Big Bang were correct, then the existence of the Higg’s Boson makes sense. However, it is illogical to state that the existence of the Higg’s Boson proves that the Big Bang happened. There are alternative explanations, and many of the peer-reviewed creationist journals have already carried articles on this subject.
Moreover, readers should also note that no one has actually “seen” this Higg’s Boson. You cannot pick it up by shining light on it, as you would with macroscopic articles. So, in practice, the experimenters at CERN have taken a lot of measurements of field perturbations and have lots of numbers, a great deal of which fall into the range, which they predicted that they would obtain, if the Higg’s Boson existed. Therefore, the existence of the Higg’s Boson is an inference rather than a direct observation. By stating this, I am in no way pouring cold water on the ability of these excellent scientists. If you hear a loud meowing noise in a neighboring locked room, you might assume that there is a cat stuck in there, though there may be alternative explanations.
It is exciting for the physicists concerned to know that their experiments are working and producing interesting and novel results. No doubt the serious physicists are looking forward to examining the results in more detail to draw further conclusions. If these scientists are making us more aware of the amazing way in which God maintains this universe that He has created for us, then this is a good thing, and we can share their excitement. Readers should not be under any illusion that any such observations and measurements make the slightest bit of difference to the truth that God made this universe in precisely the way that He said He did. There is nothing in any of these experiments that can ever, under any circumstances, disprove God, and inventing a new mythology of a “God particle” only makes our critics, with a minimal knowledge of what is actually happening, look foolish. If you think my use of the word “foolish” is insulting, then I should point out that I am using the word in exactly the same way that the Bible does in Psalm 14:1.
We Can't See Dark Matter
Experiments to detect the existence of dark matter particles have proved inconclusive, according to a recent science report. Some of these researchers have now concluded that there is no evidence that the particles, of which they suppose dark matter consists, exist.
The report, on the science news website space.com, was headlined “Search for Dark Matter Particles Turns Up Zilch.”1
What is dark matter?
What is dark matter, and what exactly were the researchers looking for?According to Wikipedia,
“its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe.”
2 The dark matter hypothesis arises from calculations concerning the Big Bang theory. There is insufficient observed matter to account for the current stability of the universe. If the Big Bang happened as postulated, and the universe contained only observable matter, then it should by now have spread itself into complete dissociation. Therefore, Big Bang astrophysicists propose that there must be much greater gravity caused by matter, which cannot be detected by any current method. This is the dark matter proposed, and Big Bang astrophysicists assume that 84% of all the matter in the universe — and overwhelming majority — is dark matter.3
Einstein’s cosmology was based on a 4-dimensional metric. He noticed that the metric did not fully work, mathematically, because of the gravitational problem suggested above, so he included a constant, which he called the Cosmological Constant, giving it the symbol Λ (the Greek uppercase lambda). He later withdrew this constant, but it has been used again in recent years, in Big Bang Inflationary scenarios.4 It could be said that Λ is essentially a “fiddle-factor” designed to make the metrics work.
Dark matter is imaginary
The creation scientist John Hartnett has done a considerable amount of research into the cosmology of Moshe Carmeli.5 Carmeli’s cosmology, which applies Einsteinian Special Relativity to a cosmic scale, requires a 5-dimensional metric. Hartnett has shown that such a metric does not require the hypothesis of dark matter. The reason for mentioning this is not to claim that Carmeli’s cosmology is the correct one. It is sufficient to note that a secular cosmology, produced by an unbeliever like Carmeli, exists without requiring dark matter, so this suggests that dark matter is merely an imaginary construct, designed to make the math work out for the standard Big Bang Inflationary model of cosmology.
In the Space.com article cited above, the author, Moskowitz, reports that scientists in Italy had developed an underground experiment to detect hypothetical dark matter particles by their effect on liquid xenon. The particles they hoped to find are called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). The failure to detect any WIMPs over a long period of time does not seem to have convinced the researchers of the non-existence of dark matter, however.Moskowitz reports that “the experimenters concluded that their findings ‘provided no evidence for the existence of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs).’”6 The statement from the researchers states: “Continued measurements with XENON100 and the new experiment XENON1T, currently under construction, should either find evidence for WIMPs or other forms of dark matter would have to be considered.” Surely, another possibility that they should consider is that their cosmology, which has led them to suppose the existence of dark matter, is wrong.
Moskowitz, C. (2012), Search for Dark Matter Particles Turns Up Zilch, < http://www.space.com/16661-dark-matter-search-reveals-nothing.html >, accessed 11/15/2012 ↩
Wikipedia article, Dark Matter, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter >, accessed 11/15/2012 ↩
Hinshaw, G.F. (2010), What Is the Universe Made of?, < http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html >, accessed 11/15/2012↩
Hartnett, J., Dark Matter and a Cosmological Constant in a Creationist Cosmology, Journal of Creation (JoC) 19(1) 2005, pp82-87 ↩
Carmeli, M. (2002), Cosmological Special Relativity, World Scientific, Singapore ↩
ob cit ↩
The Geologic Column: Is That a Fact?
Written by: Paul Taylor
It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it?
No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.
Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it?
No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock.However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred.Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years.
Well, it’s a fact that the fossils in the geologic column are dated by carbon-dating. Isn’t it?
No, it isn’t. Carbon-dating does not date anything older than about 100,000 years, as this is more than ten times the half-life of carbon-14. Other radiometric dating methods are not used on fossil layers, because these are sedimentary rocks. We challenge the assumptions used to calculate radiometric ages, but, in any case, the radiometric methods are carried out on igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks. Although one might suppose that sedimentary rocks could be approximately dated by their proximity to igneous rocks, in practice this does not always work, because there are occasions when “older” rocks are assumed to be above “lower” rocks. In fact, the dates of the sedimentary rocks are assigned according to the so-called “index fossils” within them. There will be more on this later. In fact, the millions of years were assigned to the geologic column before the advent of radiometric dating. Assumed timescales were suggested for the supposed evolution of certain creatures in the fossil record, and the dating assigned accordingly.
Well, it’s a fact that the fossils are arranged in evolutionary order. Isn’t it?You don’t find fossil rabbits in Jurassic rock.
The traditional geologic column. From Answers in Genesis.
No it isn’t. Of course, I am unaware of any fossil rabbit being found in Jurassic rock.That much is true. Though, if such a find were made, of a fossil out of place in the geologic column, it would not cause my worldview a problem, even though we have a legitimate explanation as to why such finds are not made. If the fossils are arranged in evolutionary order, then they cannot be offered as evidence for evolution, as this would be circular reasoning. Let me explain the logic behind this. The following set of statements would be logical. If evolution and millions of years were true, then one would expect to find a progression of gradually more complex organisms as one goes up the geologic column. However, it is illogical to reverse this and say that the existence of such a progression proves evolution. The reason why the latter is illogical is because there could be a completely legitimate alternative explanation, which would also lead to this supposed gradual progression. The logical fallacy that the evolutionists use here is known as “affirmation of the consequent.” Let’s give the alternative explanation in two parts.
The first part is to say that there are good creationist explanations as to why certain fossils are found together in the geologic column. For example, it is clear that dinosaur fossils are usually found in the same layers as gymnosperm plant fossils, and not angiosperms (flowering plants). But this does not have to be because of a timescale difference. It could simply be an environmental factor. Perhaps dinosaurs tended to live in gymnosperm forests, while mammals tended to live in angiosperm areas. This creationist model for the geologic column is more satisfying than the evolutionary model of millions of years. This is because the creationist model gives us a general rule, but easily permits out-of-place fossils, and, of course, such out-of-place fossils exist, such as mammals in the dinosaur layers, which evolutionists have to assume are “proto-mammals” on their way to evolution. In that case, rabbits simply did not live in the gymnosperm forests, and the existence of a rabbit fossil in the dinosaur layers becomes very unlikely, though not impossible. There is an old “joke” which asks, “Why do polar bears not eat penguins,” with the obvious answer being that they don’t live in the same part of the world. If this were true in a pre-Flood world, we would not expect to find fossil polar bears with fossil penguins.
But does the geologic column really start with simple marine invertebrates, and gradually progress to more complex fossils? In a way! We suggest that fossilization occurred mostly during the Flood, which would have been initiated by massive seismic activities, probably leading to early tsunamis and then initial retreat of waters, before final flooding of the continents. So, it is likely that large amounts of marine invertebrates would be washed onto the continents by the initial tsunamis, and then covered by later sedimentation.Thus, we would expect the lower levels of the geologic column to contain only marine invertebrates, with few, if any, of the so-called “higher” animals. Once again, the creationist model is superior, as it can more easily accommodate exceptions to the general rule, while easily explaining the general principles.
The pictures of creatures used in traditional geologic column diagrams are indicative of index fossils. Such fossils are thought to have first appeared in their particular strata, and to be indicative of the age of that stratum. One would expect such fossils to appear in layers higher than that, for which they are indices. This complicates the dating process. Dr. Gary Parker, for example, reports on the finding of a fossilized clam, which supposedly indexes strata which are millions of years old, yet it contains soft tissue, which cannot have survived for so long.
A great deal of creationist literature is available on the subject of the geologic column, and this article merely scratches the surface. Some less qualified creationists may have given the impression, unfortunately, that no patterns, that are used to compile the geologic column, exist in reality. This is not the case. However, we have seen that there are legitimate creationist explanations of such phenomenon, such as environmental considerations, or considerations in the Flood model of which organisms would be likely to be covered first.
Evolutionary Psychology: Why It Fails as a Science and Is Dangerous
by Callie Joubert
December 19, 2012
Abstract
Evolutionary psychology is accepted as the fulfillment of Darwin’s vision that psychology will one day be based on a new foundation. Evolutionary psychology is consequently portrayed as an explanatory science and the key to unlocking the mystery of where we came from, how we arrived at our current state, and what defines who we are. This paper demonstrates that evolutionary psychology fails as an explanatory science and why it is dangerous. Of first importance is to understand how evolutionary psychologists think about and approach the study of human psychology. The second part focuses on four problem areas for evolutionists, and shows that evolutionary psychology cannot explain consciousness, the self, free choice, and human nature. It then shows that science has not succeeded in confirming its commitment to physicalism.Finally, it shows why evolutionary psychology is the anti-thesis of a biblical understanding of origins and the nature of human beings. Christians and the public at large cannot afford to accept what they are being told about themselves from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
Read More @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/evolutionary-psychology?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ARJ+%28Answers+Research+Journal%29&utm_content=Netvibes