Monday, February 19, 2007

There's a funny holiday happening tomorrow here in Alberta: Family Day. It's a statutory holiday, don't you know, but only in Alberta and Saskatchewan (this is their first year celebrating it). Although the day has a dubious history, it's an interesting idea. And with that reference, I have officially become a "cool" blogger--I've referenced Wikipedia. Power to the people, and all that!

Radio stations around here are encouraging people to go and spend time with their families tomorrow. Kind of ironic, considering most people think "spending time with the family" means going to a public attraction, like a zoo or some such thing, or perhaps dining in a restaurant for dinner. Here's the thing--all those people have families too, don't they? So what you're really saying is that Family Day is a day you should take off to spend with your families, but only if you're in an office job. Oh, and don't get sick, because all the nurses are taking time off to be with their families, too.

Maybe my experiences in the service industry have made me naturally suspicious toward statutory holidays as relaxing. They were quite the opposite for me working at the airport. In fact, we all dreaded holidays because it meant more travellers, more work, and more stress.

Here I go, getting all cynical again. Okay, let's turn over a new leaf, shall we? How was your weekend? Mine was quite pleasant, thanks for asking. As I mentioned in my last posting, I attended a conference this weekend called "Genesis Unleashed" (pretty cool title, too), which was all about the creation/evolution debate and the response to it. And you know what? It was quite possibly the best conference I've ever been to. By the way, I have not proofread this part, so if it comes across a little rough, sorry.

I've long struggled with the whole creation/evolution debate (*gasp*). It's true. But I think that all of us, at one time of another, have been confronted with some kind of scientific "data" (the quotes are intentional) and had an inkling of doubt about the veracity of the biblical record. I remember talking about dinosaurs in youth group, and the best we could come up with in the face of all the irrefutable "evidence" was that dinosaur bones were a red herring, put there by God to test our faith. What a crappy answer that is. And it's not exactly something you can take to the schoolyard and get away with, nor can you enter the classroom with it.

To be honest, I thought that this conference would be all about giving good faith reasons to believe in young earth theory and all that despite the scientific evidence. What I learned, however, was that the more we learn about the earth, the more we learn that evolution is dead wrong. In fact, in the face of the actual facts, many an evolutionist has been forced to rethink their stance on where they're coming from. Science is not biased, it is godless. One of the quotes they had this weekend was from an evolutionist who said (and I'm paraphrasing, although I'll use quotes), "I choose not to believe in God, therefore I have to choose to believe in something that I know is scientifically impossible: evolution." Wow. Even the evolutionists agree that the ice they skate on is getting thin.

Just some of the evidence: carbon-14 dating has long been the gold standard by which to measure the age of various things, because it was thought that the half-life of the carbon atom was consistent across all conditions, and would give an accurate reading of the age of things. Thus, science has been coming up with all sorts of dates to prove that the earth was formed several billion years ago. Here's the skinny, though: carbon dating has been proven to be a big sham in the scientific community. Another evolutionist said, "It was once thought that half-lives were consistent no matter the conditions. We know now that isn't true anymore." Wow. The most stunning thing about this is that in 2005, geologists ascended Mt. St. Helens in Washington to carbon date the lava dome on top. They came back with the age being anywhere from 380000 to 2.8 million years (nice margin of error, by the way). The thing is that the lava dome is only 25 years old--it was created in the eruption in 1980. So if you can't even get the right date of things that we know the age of, what makes you think you're right with everything else?

Here's another one: we were always taught in school that fossils take millions of years to form, right? The explanation would be something like, "When the fish died, it sank to the bottom of the lake, where it was gradually covered in silt, and, over millions of years, the bones eventually hardened into fossils that we see today." Couple problems, though: (a) when was the last time you saw a dead fish sink? (b) Even if it did sink, when was the last time you saw a food source respectfully ignored by animals? Do crows just leave road kill on the side of the road to fossilize? Then why do we think that fish would? (c) Have you ever seen one of those underwater explorer shows? When they look at the ocean floor, how many dead fish do you see at various levels of covering waiting to be fossilized? (d) This is the best one: if fossilization happened over millions of years, how come we have fossils of fish in the process of giving birth? Man, that's one long labour!

Evolutionists say that you have to check your brain at the door in order to be a Christian. But I have to ask, doesn't it take more faith to believe that the process takes millions of years in light of what we know through observation in life?

Here's the kicker: it's been proven that fossils can be made in as little as a few hours. That's right: a few hours. In fact, one of the presenters had an exhibition of things that he had fossilized: a children's sweater, a coil of rope, paper roses, teddy bears. All of these took under two weeks to completely fossilize at a certain spring in the Czech Republic. Further, in England, there are several places where people used to bring all kinds of personal items to be fossilized, including Agatha Christie's purse, which is hanging at one of these springs.

So we know that fossils can be created in a matter of hours, days, and weeks, but we've never seen anything fossilize over a longer period of time. Which of these things sounds like science?

One more piece of evidence because, well, it's all just so irresistable. A couple years ago, scientists digging up dinosaur bones discovered blood vessels and capillaries inside the bones. These cappilaries were so supple that, when they were removed, they could be stretched out and snap back into shape. Even the person in charge of the dig, in an interview with MSNBC (which we saw) admitted that there is no way that these vessels could still be there after 68 million years (the alleged age of that particular bone). In fact, she basically stated that there was nothing in science that allowed for this, and so they'd have to rewrite there science to compensate. So if science is getting constantly rewritten and the Bible has always stayed the same (and seems to be more true), which one is right?

The bottom line of the conference was this: you can't allow the foundation of the Bible, Genesis, to become eroded in your mind. Once we start to doubt the literal nature of the Genesis account (don't make me get into the Hebrew argument as to why the "days" of Genesis 1 must be literal days), we usurp God as our authority and put ourselves there instead. Once we do that, well, I guess we'll have what we've got now: amorality. Besides, if we think that Adam and Eve weren't necessarily real people (which is a natural progression if we start to doubt the creation narrative), then what's the point of Christ being the second Adam (Romans 5)? In fact, what's the point of Christ at all if man hasn't really fallen like the Bible says? Without Genesis, the rest of our faith falls apart, but we don't realize that. So we compromise what we believe to fit with the "scientific" evidence, when what's really suspect here isn't the veracity of the Word of God, but the claims of science itself to be objective. It isn't.

I could get into so much more (DNA, cell structure, flood evidence, etc), but who has three hours to type it? And who has more time to read it? Seriously, I'm trying to keep this short-ish. So much for that, eh?

Moving on. Went to a new church this morning, and almost walked out halfway through the sermon. Poor, poor exegesis--possibly the poorest I've ever heard. You don't want me to get into it, trust me, but it was bad. Fortunately, it wasn't the regular pastor, so we might actually go back again just to redeem the experience. Maybe.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that we went to the 8:30 service. Man, does that ever mess with your internal clock. We were done at 9:35, which is about when we'd be getting ready to leave for another service. It was strange to get home and it still be "breakfast time." I'm so accustomed to church taking up most of the morning that I didn't know what to do with myself for the rest of the day. And there's not even any football on now! Oh well, guess I'll spend time with my wife and son or something like that. Sheesh.

Had some playtime, went for a walk (it was 7 degrees today in the sunshine--and the incessant drip of snow melting almost drove me to the point of insanity), then came back and had a family nap in the afternoon. Bliss. After that, went over to some friends' for dinner and a show (the show was when Theo tried to interact with their cat--hilarious), and now I'm here. And it's late. And I've rambled.

Sorry about the length tonight--if you're still with me, I applaud you. Thanks for coming by, and I'll be back here tomorrow. Hope to see you, too.