Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by 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.
If you don't, maybe you should read a bit more.
That's just not true. There are lots of things we can prove and disprove without being able to replicate them in a lab. Surely, even you wouldn't dismiss astronomy as hokum because we can't get a star into a bottle. In fact, evolution is tested on a daily basis. Scientists, for example, can use the theory of evolution to make predictions about where fossils will be found, in what layers of rock, and what they will look like. Scientists also use morphological data to make genetic predictions, and vice versa, again something you'd only expect to be able to do with the theory of evolution.
You're coming dangerously close to factual relativism -- because I can't prove a negative, because the Deity could always have forged the evidence used to support evolution -- you're trying to say that our explanations are equally correct. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and one that should trouble you.
I said specifically that I was not a theologian or a scientist. There is no certainty in my statements about Moses, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that there was. I included them only to show that there are plenty of questions on the origin, and translation of the Pentatuach. My limited knowledge comes from Catechist training in the Catholic Church, reading, and bible study. My beliefs are consistant with the teachings of the Catholic church.
I did not imply that the Bible was undependable. To the contrary, I believe the Bible is quite dependable. I do not believe in a literal translation, that’s all. It is possible to believe in the truth of the Bible, without a literal translation. You may not agree with it, but it is possible.
I truly don’t know what you mean about dependent translations. I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. Someone posted that it is not possible to believe in Christ and evolution, I only seek to prove they are wrong and that it is possible to believe in both. In fact, many people do. It is not my intention to offend anyone, or to sway opinions.
I just got home from a 16 hr day and my mind just couldn't unscramble all those words.
I'll try to remember to come back here Saturday.
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.
First he builds a false dichotomy by claiming that the only reason evolutionary proponents would not call is because of a fear or reluctance based on a lack of trust in the science. The dichotomy he builds is that if they have valid reasons they would call in and if they do not have valid reasons they would avoid calling in. There are many other reasons why evolution proponents would not call in, including but not limited to:
- he has very few listeners who are evolutionary proponents because those proponents gave up long ago and no longer want to waste their time listening to his nonsense.
- those few evolutionary proponents(EPs) that do listen decided his rant was not worth responding to.
- those even fewer EPs considering responding realized no argument, no point, no amount of evidence would be accepted.
- all EPs were busy at work trying to make a living.
- his call screener placed EPs at the back of the queue.
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.
Next he attempts to slide in an appeal to popularity, assuming of course that his audience would accept that science is based on the number of lay people who believe in it. Unfortunately he was correct in that assumption. However, by that standard then Astrology should be considered to have a significant truth value.
What is and should be considered of high confidence level in science are conclusions based on the rigorous application of the scientific method and the peer review process, whether that conclusion agrees with the beliefs of the majority of lay people or not. Science is not a popularity contest.
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.
Except where it contradicts itself and proposes events not possible given the known 'laws of nature'.
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!
And as we all know this author is an expert in Evolution.
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.
Interesting that the earliest 'dragons' looked like serpents with (or in some cultures, without) short legs, nothing like the majority of fossils so far found.
We have also found ancient drawings of animals not found in extant nor extinct populations, such as Pegasus, minotaurs, griffins, Olympian Gods, Jackal Gods, leprechauns and a fair number of other 'beings' which are imaginative extrapolations and composites of existing organisms.
I guess the author believes that humans in the past are somehow less intelligent than we are today and had rather poor imaginations and story telling abilities. He must also believe that dinosaur fossils have only been available for discovery for a few hundred years.
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?
So far all of the purported man footprints alongside dinosaur footprints have been shown to be misinterpretations or outright fraud. This is so well known that a number of Creationist sites have suggested people not use this argument. I believe Coyoteman has posted those links a few times.
I would also like to see a cite for the discovery of dino fossils alongside human remains.
And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.
They have been captured? Where are the cites for this information?
This is nothing but an argument by assertion, without some data behind the comment it is worth nothing.
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.
As opposed to the creationist's normal process, and one this author actually stated earlier in this article, of assuming the Bible is correct and any evidence found which contradicts this is to be either ignored or corrupted.
Why has the author not bothered to list some of this evidence that science is ignoring? I know I would be interested in seeing some.
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.
The author is really viewing ancient peoples as stupid and without imagination assuming that they did not find their own fossils and could not imagine what the original animal would have looked like. I guess they only had the ability to draw living animals they were in contact with. Such a pity when we can think so far beyond that.
On top of that, it doesn't matter if some very ancient animals were alive at the time of man.
If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.
This is complete nonsense, the discovery of dinosaurs alive today (outside of birds) would not affect the truth value of evolution one iota, just as the discovery of coelacanths, the existence of sharks (or any other fish) and crocodiles does not affect the validity of the theory. In evolution it is not the length of time a species survives but when a species begins. Speciation is about genetic isolation where one subgroup 'can' remain the roughly same while the other changes over time.
This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak.
Bologna! We speak about coelacanths, sharks, turtles, and other 'living fossils' all the time. That they are alive today is irrelevant. There is no time limit imposed upon population evolution.
This author shows a rather poor grasp of evolution, perhaps he should either avoid talking about it or get an education, unless of course he is attempting to pull a 'Coulter' where knowledge would be a bad thing.
You did it again. I am not sure you can see your own assumptions at work. The wording you are using, heavy with the loaded words "trickster and dishonest" are understood to be your opinions for political impact, they are certainly not truthful in the light of the Bible you are referring to, nor are they theologically and/or biblically accurate concerning the hand of God as recorded in scripture.
You must ask yourself a few things before you continue to use political words like 'dishonest' and 'trickster'.
Was God playing a trick on all those men who went looking for Enoch after God translated him from this earth while he was still alive? No death involved there, just a trick you say?
Was God a trickster when Mary had a baby without a man's involvement? Would that have been tricky to the scientific men at the time (and even the nonscientific) who had lifetimes of scientific experience proving that a man must be involved for pregnancy to occur.
Who was lying, your trickster God or the naturalists alive at the time who refused to understand this event as the hand of the very God they claimed to believe?
In fact if you used science, you would have been doomed to denying the truth and blaming it all on a trickster God for planting evidence (a baby)
When Jesus fed the multitudes with fish, did those fish have lifetimes or were they just a trick of a trickster God?
Were the works of God through his servant Moses mere parlor tricks by a trickster God? Was the blood that protected the firstborn from the angel of death just another deceitful sham by a trickster God?
One millionth of a second after Adam was created, how old was he?
Like I said, some things are outside the finite measurements of finite man and his finite scientific tools. We sometimes wish this were different, but it is the undeniable truth.
A one time, unrepeatable event such as the creation of man and the age of the earth cannot be discovered by science unless we have the wisdom and knowledge of God to know where our best science might lead us astray when testing the untestable.
Pushing the limitations of science is a wonderful thing, (as long as we consider such things as the sanctity of life, etc.) however, making speculative and absolute conclusive leaps about untestable one time events could lead to false conclusions as they have in the past. The Bible is full of examples of this error.
Appreciated. I will write some more when I have time and health, but for now, your wording to the effect that what we have are only error laden translations of translations can be misleading and should be addressed.
Once again, you are assuming the size of the ocean, you are assuming that salinity levels were the same as today, and you are assuming that the created “kinds” are the same as what we today identify as species.
==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.
Not too long ago, the cambrian explosion was thought to be impossible. Many scientists think that if there was indeed a cambrian exposion that it would be due to selective pressures associated with a rapidly changing environment. It’s hard to imagine scenario with more selective pressures than the rapidly changing post flood environment.
==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?
Depends on what you mean by non-random mutation. I mean directed, heritable mutation in the Lamarckian/epigenetic sense. What do you mean? If you are limiting your understanding of non-random mutation to oncogenes, then we are not on the same page.
==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...
You have not proved me wrong once, and if you had I would admit it. And it was you who engaged me, not the other way around. If you don’t want to engage in a debate about origins with laymen, either keep your comments to yourself or stay the hell off of these threads.
==geologists discovered the earth was billions of years old long before Darwin came along. So when you attack geologists as “Darwinists” I hope you realize that geology has nothing directly to do with the theory of evolution.
Please cite your sources. I have researched the age debate, and I can categorically tell you that the age of the earth was not settled by the time Darwin came along (let alone “long before Darwin came along”!). If you don’t even know that, may I suggest that it is YOU who needs to go back and do some remedial reading. LOL
I do not know how it happened. I do not know if its impossible or not. I do not have to support it or not.
You see I believe in creation, it is you who believe in evolution so it is up to you to argue in favor of what you believe, I already know what I believe and do not have to argue for it.
If you really believe “evolution”, you would just state that and let it be but you are so desperate for me to change my mind........
Landmarks, while you are evaluating Kaker’s “lying god” arguments, you might want to take a few minutes and read the following—GGG
The fussily evidence:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
Ice cores:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html
Carbon 14 and Tree Ring dating:
Ooops, make that fossil evidence, not “fussily” evidence!
While your at it, may I also suggest the following on the geologic column:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html
As you might imagine, I find Dr. Pitman’s website an excellent resource!—GGG
Just thinking again about your asking how the flood was possible and why I was not giving what you deem legitimate answers to the question.
I have decided to invoke my free will and not answer. You see with free will I chose not to answer or answer as I see fit.
You on the other hand who believe in evolution would not have free will at all and be compelled to continually try and answer the question because you have no choice just as a cat has no choice but to chase the mouse.
I do have a question how did free will evolve?
Your example is a very mild form of evolution...When evolution is viewed as an alternative to creation then it gets ridiculous.
Evidence is used to PROVE something. What is that skull evidence of? evidence of evolution? There simply is NO MISSING LINK just like there is NO ‘gay gene’ yet proponents of ‘Evolution’ insist that it is truth and it is taught to our children in public schools as truth and that is simply not so.
Evolution is a fairy tale bedtime story for the death culture.
I’ve never met an intelligent, articulate person that believed it; there’s just too much evidence against it visible in every square inch of the Earth.
This assertion is an out and out lie, and every person that has posted this has been shown to be a liar, yourself included. The compressinn analysis of the footprints in the Palauxy has proven each and every one that has been sectioned to be footprints. Those sections are just one example of the thousands of facts that demolish evolution and old earth nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.