Why I believe in Creation

Worlnetdaily ^ | 12/17/2004 | joe farah

[Rodney King]

Why I believe in Creation Posted: December 17, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

I was stunned the other day when I asked evolution-believing listeners to my nationally syndicated radio show to call in and tell me why they believed.

"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."

Not one evolutionist called in.

Meanwhile, the phone banks lit up with dozens of evolution skeptics.

Go figure. For more than 40 years, evolution has been taught as fact in government schools to generations of children, yet there is still widespread skepticism, if not cynicism, about the theory across the country.

But, because of political correctness and the fear of ostracism, most people are afraid to admit what they believe about our origins. That's why I wrote my last column – "I believe in Creation."

The reaction to it has been unprecedented. While I expected mostly negative fallout, most letters have been quite positive.

So, I decided to take this issue a step further. Since the evolutionists don't want to tell me why they believe in their theory, I figured I would explain why I believe in mine.

The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.

But what about the worldly evidence?

The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

Think of all the world's legends about dragons. Look at those images. What were those folks seeing? They were clearly seeing dinosaurs. You can see them etched in cave drawings. You can see them in ancient literature. You can see them described in the Bible. You can see them in virtually every culture in every corner of the world.

Did the human race have a collective common nightmare? Or did these people actually see dragons? I believe they saw dragons – what we now call dinosaurs.

Furthermore, many of the dinosaur fossils discovered in various parts of the world were found right along human footprints and remains. How did that happen?

And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.

There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa.

You know what I think? I think we've been sold a bill of goods about the dinosaurs. I don't believe they died off millions and millions of years ago. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they've died off completely.

Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.

How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak.

[Theo]

I did a bit of research on the toxic cane toad, and its introduction to Australia. Cool stuff. Seems the ones with longer legs are surviving better, and this trait is being passed along to their offspring.

Surely this isn’t an example of “evolution” of species, as you said earlier? You wouldn’t say that a short Pygmy and a tall Massai are different species? No, they’re both fully Homo sapiens, though they have different genetic features.

[ahayes]

Wow!! How’d it get so salty all so fast? Can you spot your assumptions? You must assume things that are physically impossible.

Of course it all could be a tremendous miracle—God flooded the world with water that he made specially for the occasion, then vanished it afterwards, and the world doesn’t look like it was completely flooded 4000 years ago because it was all a miracle. But then you must back away from the claim that creation itself testifies to these things.

[ahayes]

Oh yeah, and if the water wasn't salty, where the heck did the huge salt deposits in supposedly Flood strata come from? And even if the water was salty, where did these deposits come from? Such deposits only form from the gradual evaporation of a large body of water.

[capt. norm]

I have a 37-year old double yellow Amazon parrot and my vet. says she is more reptile than I could ever imagine.

It came in response to my question about the bird craving raw meat (only beef, fish, chicken). I was worried about giving her hamburger with the possibility of salmonella or whatever in it.

He said the bird could eat, digest and enjoy contaminated food that would kill a human. They supposedly have reptilian digestive systems. Same thing that works for vultures.

This is not my bird, but it looks very much like her. She is heavy, for a bird... almost 2 pounds, and has recently decided to become my six-year-old granddaughter's personal body guard. We have a dog (boxer) and two cats and all three of those pets show great respect for the bird. I don't know what kind of encounters it took to gain that respect, but I guess having a beak that can crush a broomstick put her in a good bargaining position.

[toast]

"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."

One piece of evidence is not that convincing. The mountain of evidence is very convincing.

[ga medic]

Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful analysis. I have been trying to figure out how to respond, without giving the appearance that I am arguing with you. I am not. I am neither a theologian or a scientist. I am just hoping to present my beliefs to you, so that you know that there are some that are serious about their faith, and believe in evolution.

To explain as simply as I can, I am not ashamed of the words of Christ. On the contrary, I am proud to be a Christian, and his words greatly influence my life.

The Bible, was written by men, not God. (I know that it is the inspired word) It has been translated and retranslated. Some translations have been destroyed because they were thought to be inaccurate. It is clear that scribes have included revisions and additions, as some information was not known during the time of Moses. (Num 32:34-42) The laws of Moses are also incomplete, as some laws are referenced elsewhere in the Bible, but not found in the Pentatauch. (2 Chron 30:16) Although, Moses clearly wrote many of the laws, exactly as God dictated, it is unclear which of the first 5 books are Mosaic. Many believe that Genesis was written by others. The OT is full of laws that are no longer followed, and punishments which are considered exceedingly severe by today’s standards.

I try to focus on the larger truths and messages of the Bible. Repentance, Salvation, the power and love of God. I accept that God has created the universe and all that is contained in it. I accept that all is possible through him.

I just can’t say with certainty that a day, as written in Genesis, is a reference to our 24 hour day. Nor can I say with certainty that when God “created” man and woman, that it was instantly complete, and didn’t involve an evolutionary process.

For that reason, I believe that evolution, as the scientific evidence supports, is the method through which man evolved. I cannot think of any evidence supporting evolution that would clearly disprove the existance or power of God. Religion is a different story. Some forms of “religion” might be disproved by evidence of evolution. I see those two things are completely different.

[atlaw]

The bible is very clear on this subject. There is a distinct timeline of the events of creation.

A very clear, distinct timeline?

When was man created? When were the animals created? Were the days with their mornings and evenings created before or after the sun? How was man created? Was woman created simultaneously with man in the image of God on the sixth day, or from the dust of the ground sometime earlier than the sixth day, or from a rib plucked out of Adam? Which fish, fowl, and beast of the field did God discretely create and which were "brought forth" by the "waters" and by the "earth"? How did the waters and earth "bring forth" creatures?

Genesis is wonderful puzzle, but "very clear" it's not.

[atlaw]

Ergo, those who accept the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological diversification are going to hell. Right?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Wow!! How’d it get so salty all so fast? Can you spot your assumptions? You must assume things that are physically impossible.

From a Creation Science point of view, we don’t know the size or starting salinity of the oceans, nor do we know how the salinity was impacted by the flood. But what we do know about ocean salinity completely demolishes Darwinian assumptions:

http://unmaskingevolution.com/27-oceanage.htm

[Stultis]

They can sugar coat it all they want and say that He allowed the evolutionary process, but that is a dichotomy if examined in light of the scriptures

Well, then, the normal scientific approach to embryology and human development (i.e. approaching it as a coherently naturalistic process) is also dichotomous to creation "in the light of the scripture".

I won't take the time to gather them together now, but just consult the standard Biblical proof texts cited by pro-lifers on the subject of abortion. You'll find a clear and consistent Biblical teaching, couched in creationistic language, that God is personally, actively and intimately involved in the creation of each individual human, and not just of the "soul" but most emphatically also of the physical body. God "forms" our "inward parts". He "knits us together of bone and sinew," and the like.

If it contradicts scripture to counterpoise, within the domain of secular science, naturalistic theory to God's claim as Creator of the human species in general, then certainly it also contradicts scripture to counterpoise naturalistic theory (i.e. embryology) to His equally clear claim as Creator of each human individual. Indeed the latter claim, as instanced by it's frequent citation in the abortion debate, is arguably the more important.

And yet I've never once heard a creationist complain about naturalistic embryological science being a threat to God's status as Creator. Although, if consistent with their anievolutionary views, they should do so.

[atlaw]

The analysis at your link grossly underestimates sodium depletion. Analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

See: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

[jude24]

If you do belive in evolution and Jesus as you say, perhaps you would entertain Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. Other texts would include Hewbrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16 and others. Now the Bible speaks of Jesus Christ involved in creation. What will you believe?

There's a third option - that my understanding of Scripture is inaccurate. It's neither good science nor good exegesis to say, "But the Bible says this!" when confronted with scientific observations.

[Old Landmarks]

I am not ashamed of the words of Christ.

Good for you, but so many people in this self-important age work to convince others to be ashamed of, or to disbelieve the Bible which contains the words of Christ of which you are not ashamed.

I hope you have not been swayed by the television, since -almost- every historical and educational program I have seen on television for the last fifty years are written from a decidedly humanistic propagandist point of view under the typical leftist pretense of neutrality.

Where did you receive your religious education which gives you such certainty about what Moses dictated or wrote? You implied a series of dependant translations which have led us to such error that the Bible is apparently undependable, at least for you and anyone you can convince to agree with you. Please give me the chain of translations that have taken place which you imply are dependantly linked to one another which make all modern translations unreliable.

Please be specific.

Do you believe the words of Christ? Where do you find the words of Christ? Who told you they were the words of Christ?

[El Cid]

Re: 178

Well in that case, you vote wrong.

I hate to dissuade you from delusions of grandeur - but you aren't the final arbiter.

I think it's funny that you barge into this thread whining about how the whole FR debate lacks substance, and then you proceed to do your best to lower the debate even more.

Glad to provide you with some merriment then.
You missed my point -- its not that these Crevo/Evo threads lack substance, its that after burning a load of calories - you end up in the same place.
You are not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince you.
I'd say that's true of everyone else on this thread.
The reason is because we are talking about a unique event that cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Be it ex nihilo creation by the Creator or a billion year process that required strange 'punctuated equilibrium' (or happy monster mutation) events (or whatever is the latest rage in the Macroevolutionist's world)- neither of these models are provable.
So why did I bother to drop in on this thread?
That's a good question; but the individual to whom I addressed my post reminded me a bit of myself from years back: a wannabe Christian, but also wanting to straddle the fence of what was popularly believed by man - and therefore taking bits out of the Bible that I liked, and claiming the rest that I didn't like was due to man's corruption...In other words - buying into the old lie that 'ye can be as gods', and disregarding the fact that there IS one God - and not considering what that fact actually means.
Casting seeds on stony ground, or good soil? Who knows...

You're an odd one.

Why thank you. Although I prefer the word 'peculiar' (1 Peter 2:9).

[P8riot]

I believe that they are deluded. God did not say that he created a process whereby one species evolved into another, as evolutionists would have us believe. He mandated that every creature reproduce after its own kind. God does not serve up scripture “a la carte.” It is an all or nothing deal.

[El Cid]

Re: 194

Yes, but unfortunetly it is causing many today to deny science.

And that is why I used the phrase 'real science', when I referenced the works of Bible literalists such as Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, JC Maxwell, Hoyle, etc.

How does the belief in macroevolution help you in any scientific or engineering endeavor?
I'm sure it'll help someone get published, or gain tenure at a University -- as would belief in man-made Global Warming -- but how does it help you actually accomplish something of value?
Whether or not you believe in ex nihilo Creation, or billions of years of Macro Evolution is dependent on what starting point you take as your belief (e.g., 'the Bible is literally true' vs. 'There is no Creator -- or IF there is, He's a hand's off kind of guy...').
But after that, all other scientific or engineering advancements are data driven; and none of this data - or analysis - is dependent on what happened 6000 years (or 4.5 billion years) ago.
Thus I disagree with the claim that a belief in the Creator and a Biblical interpretation of the Creation is a hindrance to science. If anything, I believe the work of men, and nations, who Believe in God have been - and continue to be - Blessed by the God of Providence.

[Rodney King]

How does the belief in macroevolution help you in any scientific or engineering endeavor?

I don't disagree. To believe that we came from nothing, with nothing there before, is as much a religion as any other.

But, a lot of creationists, like Joe Farah, believe silly and stupid stuff like there being Pterodactyls in Asia.

[Alter Kaker]

I doubt there would be any need to take amphibians on the Ark.

Once again, you show you just aren't really up on any of this. Given the rather extraordinarily limited ability of amphibians to survive in ocean water, I think Noah would have probably needed to take a few with him. In addition to frogs, Noah would have needed to take rodents (2,277 species), lizards (3,000+ species), etc.

There is variation within the created kinds, and as many experiments have already shown genetic mutation can take place extremely fast.

So you think that there's scientific evidence to suggest -- or at least allow -- for thousands of species mutating into existence in 5000 years? I'm afraid your understanding is perhaps lacking.

Indeed, more and more evidence is starting to suggest that at least some mutations are not random.

You say this as if this is a surprise. We've known since at least the discovery of the oncogene in 1970 that there are random mutations and non-random mutations. Your point?

Is it your contention that he comes to different conclusions in his "popular" books?

No, but he fleshes out his ideas more fully in his more technical books.

Now look. I'm going to put this as delicately as I can. On this thread you've been consistently wrong, but you've been more than wrong. You've been consistently, carelessly and, to my mind, inexcusably uneducated about the very basics of the subject about which you are arguing.

You really have no excuse getting into a so-called debate with scientists about the merits of science, if you believe that amphibians live in oceans. Or that the existence of non-random mutations are in any way controversial, new or contested.

[GodGunsGuts]

Well I searched and searched and other than Joly’s research (1901) I couldn’t find anything else on historical salinity levels. Although, if ocean salinity is slowly declining, or even remaining constant, then it does raise an interesting question as to how the ocean achieved its current salinity levels. Having said that, and given the paucity of research on the subject, there are probably too many factors that play into regulating salinity to speculate further about the subject. I therefore retract my previous statement pending further evidence—GGG

[Alter Kaker]

Are you aware that you are making an assumption or series of assumptions yourself and this is the foundation upon which you are basing your accusation of dishonesty toward God?

I'm not accusing God of being dishonest, I'm accusing those people who think God put up microwave background radiation in order to deceive us are the ones accusing God of being dishonest. But it's not just MBR. If the Young Earth Creationists are right, God is also deceiving us all the time. In order to make the world look old, He's fabricating fossils, playing around with ice cores, creating fake "ancient" mutations in our genetic code, making stars millions of light years away appear visible to us, He's falsified tree rings, and variously sped up and slowed down the motion of planets and stars. In other words, there are so many thousands of independent pieces of evidence pointing to an ancient universe, that falsifying all those pieces of data must be more than a full time job. Yet you think that trickster is your God.

You worship that god; I'll worship the God of Abraham.

If you are denying ... the supernatural then that is your choice,

What are you talking about? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.