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.
What is noticeable is that these C/E threads bring out those who wish to rehash every argument ever made over the past 6000 years and the refutations as well. However, neither the Cs nor the Es appear to know the purpose of the hypothesis of evolution nor how it works nor who might be using it in their discipline.
It is not possible for me to get into it here and now. Among the reasons being that I simply do not have time, and this is after all not my Forum.
I will say however that it seems to me that you pretty much have no idea about what you are posting of when it comes to what the Bible is really all about.
It is really that simple.
I understand your frustration, and that you see some worshiping a God that appears unfair and sometimes cruel. I have shared those thoughts at certain times in my life. This world is unfair and cruel, there is no way to argue that fact.
Certainly God hasn’t provided me with a fairy tale life. I have never won the lottery, or much of anything for that matter. I have suffered through much more hardship than some and much less than others. What God has done for me is to provide me strength to survive an abusive and terrifying childhood, guidance when trying to pull my life together, and comfort when things have been more difficult than planned. So it might not be as “measly” as you thought.
I take comfort in my belief that this world is temporary, but God’s world is not. Jessica has left the unfairness and cruelty of this world for a better place. I know her parents are still suffering, and I pray that God will provide some comfort from their pain.
I hope this doesn’t sound preachy or lecturing. I am not that kind of Christian. I am only trying to explain my beliefs to you, not change yours. The fact that you can obviously care so much about an innocent life, tells me that you are a good person. Probably a far better person that some “Christians” that I know. Peace.
Agreed. But that is not to say that I find Farah's beliefs any more credible. The choice is not either/or, either swallow General Evolution hook, line, and sinker, or be a strict literalist.
The Genesis account speaks of the six days of the creation, but the sun and moon hadn't yet been created for the first few days. Since the word "day" is defined by the setting and rising of the sun, we can presume that the account means a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours.
Similarly, the Bible speaks of the sun rising and setting. We still use that language, but we now know that this apparent effect is caused by the spinning of the earth, not the diurnal movement of the sun. That doesn't change the essential truth of the biblical accounts. We know that the sun doesn't actually rise or set, but we still comfortably and reasonably use that language.
My problem with General Evolution is not that it doesn't accord with a literal reading of Genesis, but that it is astronomically improbable--so improbable that evolutionists have tried to "save the appearances" by positing an infinite number of universes. Ours is the one in which all the numbers and constants are right for the rise of life and of man, which would otherwise be so extremely improbable as to be called impossible. After all, in an infinite number of universes, anything can happen. Infinity negates statistical probabilities. But where is the evidence to support this wild theory, other than the fact that it's the only way to account for the wild implausibility of the numbers?
It is really that simple.
Then be my guest. Explain to me how "evening and morning" can refer to anything other than what we understand them to be.
It seems to me that the only alternative is to interpret them as metaphorical, and metaphorical language always is symbolic of an underlying related truth.
Clearly then, this underlying related truth must correlate to some type of dichotomous division of those eons, as represented metaphorically by days.
What then is this truth....this distinguishable division of the eons?
But on the same token, not necessarily indicative of anything other than a twenty-four hour day, especially when taken in context with the language of text.
Why is it so hard to grasp that God established such a length of time from the beginning as a "standard" for purposes of "understanding and communication" with his special creation, and that he also acted, as per Genesis, within this time frame for each of the six days of creation.
["So far all of the purported man footprints alongside dinosaur footprints have been shown to be misinterpretations or outright fraud"]
"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."
Since you have focused on this one point I made am I to assume you agree with everything else I said? Interesting.
Anyway, to address your claim that I am a liar and the Paluxy tracks have not been debunked, here is some information for you.
You mention compression tests done on some of those tracks, I assume you mean one of Baugh's dug up chunks of rock? Do you mean the compression test done on this 'artifact'?
Here is a very short list of articles from Talk Origins. Before you go off on some rant about how biased T.O. may be, if you do not trust their work then follow the cites they give which in most cases will eventually end up with the primary literature. All T.O. ever does is research the science and report as accurately as possible the results. They are a better source for accurate scientific knowledge than any creationist website, especially those where the Bible is considered to automatically supersede any science which contradicts it.
Here is an interesting note from one of those creationist sites you fellows seem to love and admire so much.
Answers in Genesis "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
Under the heading "Which arguments should definitely not be used?"
“Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”
"Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However, there is much other evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted—see Q&A: Dinosaurs."
Now I believe you were calling me a liar. Hmmmm, just where was I lying? Perhaps your claim that I am a liar is your own bit of prevarication?
I suggest you sleep with your pyramid hat over top of your tinfoil one tonight and increase your customary nightly Homeopathic snake oil to a full gallon. That should help you see your error in calling me a liar a little more clearly. (You might want to wear a diaper, that is a lot of water)
Could you please provide a link so that all of us may see what you claim is an obviously undoctored photo of WW11 era troops in Australia standing over the carcass of a pterodactyle...
I have seen the picture of civil war troops standing over what is declared to be a pterodactyle, but that photo has been proven to be a fake, a hoax...I have included a link about this hoax...to all interested, just scroll down the page, and you will find this hoaxed picture, and an article all about it...
http://www.lorencoleman.com/museum.html
But you make the claim that these are WW11 era troops in Australia in much the same sort of pose..
Please provide a link to this photo you are talking about, or at least an article about it...I am sure we would all be interested in seeing such a photo, with documentation, that the photo is not doctored, in any way...
Perhaps you should learn a little more about what the ToE predicts before making statements like this. Your first step should be to look up the various types of speciation, particularly Allopatric speciation. To help you on your way here is a little essay put together by a Philosopher of Science specializing in species concepts:
Speciation, in sexual organisms anyway, occurs when two genetic groups no longer intersperse by interbreeding. This can happen in the following ways.
1. Instantaneous speciation. This tends to occur mainly in plants through hybridisation or a duplication of the number of chromosomes at conception. Hybrids will have asymmetric chromosomes to begin with but a process of doubling and lack of secondary reduction through meiosis (or the formation of haploid, or half complement of chromosome-containing, cells). So, when you get a hybrid, the chromosomes of the two parent forms don't match up, but if you then double the chromosomes and don't halve them again, you can pair them up.
In the case of duplication of one species' chromosomes, you end up with a 2n (or 3n or 4n...) set of already paired chromosomes.
Sometimes these polyploids, as they are called (many-numbered), are able to reproduce by selfing, or the polyploid is a common enough event that there are two or more individuals that can cross, and away you go. Secondary selection eliminates genes that are less fit.
2. Allopatric speciation. A bit of terminology to begin with - "patris" means "country" or "homeland". It comes in flavours ranging from "sym" (together) through "peri" (next to) to "allo" (separate). So allopatric speciation is "speciation that happens when the populations are isolated geographically". We'll encounter some other patrises later.
In allopatric speciation, a species' range is divided, say, by a river or mountain range or desert or currents in the ocean, etc. Once this happens, they are adapting to novel conditions and also a process of more or less random (stochastic) processes of sampling the genetic variants leads to a population that is rather different from the parental one. The stochastic process is called "random genetic drift". Although reproductive infertility or isolation is not something that selection "aims for", it is often a byproduct of changes made to the developmental cycle of the isolate population. So, when the two get back in sympatry, they either can't interbreed (are isolated) or they can but the hybrids are not as fit as either of the parental variants (lowered hybrid fitness), and so they are then subjected to "reinforcing selection" to maintain isolation. [Of course they may just end up going extinct as well, due to lowered fitness.]
3. Peripatric speciation. In this case the isolated population is not entirely genetically isolated, but because it is on the periphery of the main population, a local population (caled[sic] a "deme") may have unusual genetic variants (called alleles") that get established for a mix of selective and drift reasons to the point where hybrids between them and the main population are less fit, causing reinforcing selection. This occurs because the rate of interdeme crossing is lower than the rate of intrademe crossing, and so it is able under certain conditions to form novel genotypes and developmental sequences. [Technical note: when the rate of migration between populations is less than 50%, it is parapatry. When the geographical isolation is less than 100% it is peripatry. So para- and peri-patry can be the state of the same population. This is a nusiance[sic] piece of confusing terminology.]
4. Sympatric speciation. This is controversial (and was Darwin's preferred view). In this view, a variant form reaches a new "adaptive peak", and reinforcing selection selects against hybrids with the prior form. This is thought to happen in a couple of ways. One is through the evolution of novel mating systems, such as calls (the case of the electric signaling fishes, for example; the classical case is the mating calls of Rana pipiens). Another way is through the adaptation to a new host, such as when Rhagoletis fruitflies started breeding on apple trees in California, which flower at a different time of year, causing selection to isolate the older hawthorn-breeding developmental cycle from the newer apple-breeding developmental cycle. This is sometimes called "host-race" speciation.
5. Statsipatric speciation (in-place). This is like the instantaneous case above, although the chromosomal variants are able to interbreed with the original chromosome count individuals. Selection takes the form of inviable developmental cycles.
6. Introgression. In this case a population of, say, flowering plants, is able to cross with some other species, but the progeny aren't thereby members of a new species, but backbreed into the population, changing its genetic constitution and adaptive niche so that when it is in sympatry with the original species, the population is now isolated.
Speciation studies focus a lot on "reproductive isolating mechanisms" (RIMs) which are the particular mechanisms that keep populations from sharing their genes. These are either a byproduct of evolution (say, in allopatry), or are secondarily subjected to selection (in peripatry), or are the direct result of selection (in sympatry).
There are also cases of speciation being caused by parasites. A parasitic cell called Wollbachia can infect the sex cells of arthropods (insects etc.) so that uninfected individuals, though themselves genetically identical, cannot interbreed with infected ones. In this case the infection acts like a kind of allopatry, even if they are in the same home region, allowing the genes to evolve incidentally in their own way through drift and selection.
_____________________
A hybrid is the combination of two independent lineages, irrespective of fertility. The technical term for an infertile hybrid is "mule".This means that hybridism occurs within species (say, between haplotypes), as well as between species. In the latter case there can be complete infertility, mostly infertility, partial infertility, or only a lowered rate of crossbreeding. Basically if you take it to be the rate of gene flow, it can run from 0% to ->%50.
The RIM account of the biospecies concept only refers to a lowered rate of successful hybridism.
The species themselves are often well defined, so we think, only to find (as in tigers and lions) that they not only *can* successfully reproduce, but that the hybrid can be stronger or bigger than the parental forms. So the final question is why the species don't merge - geographical isolation and possible lowered ecological fitness might explain it.
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project University of Queensland
Then look up the 'tree of life', this site might help, to help you understand how organisms are related.
Thanks very much for showing that this notion that mans footprints alongside of dinosaur footprints are nothing but an outright fraud...good to also note, that AiG also has enough sense to tell its fellow creationist believers that using this argument is a not a good idea...I can only see that AiG has enough sense to also believe that these tracks are nothing but a hoax...I hope the AiG also tells its fellow creationist believers not to use the ‘Darwin recanted’ argument as well...
To me, these two arguments, are so poorly argued, that anyone can see through them, and see them for what they are...hoaxes...
Anyway, thanks for the info and the links..I appreciate them, as I am sure, many other posters and lurkers appreciate them as well...
If you are simply interested in dissecting the Biblical text in order to have it conform to certain preconceived notions about time and space just for the sake of argument then you are probably posting to the wrong FReeper.
From what I have gleaned on this thread, I conclude that you really do not know a whole lot about what you are talking about regarding the Bible, but perhaps you did take a Divinity Course or more along the way to this particular day.
Well, I have been there myself as well. Presumably you'll gather up all of your selected resources concerning the Yawhist, the Elohist, the Priestly Writer, the Deuteronomist and whatever else that the eggheads have come up with recently in order to justify their predetermined conclusions concerning primary source of the Pentateuch.
Well, personally, I tired of that game of debating folks on these issues, who had their minds set in stone long ago.
Go play, have fun, make a fool of yourself with your supposed understanding of what really are very simple matters.
I'll jump in from time to time if I happen to notice you trying to beat up on folks with your superficial undisciplined knowledge.
Really though, if I wanted to be "bored" I'd have taken more woodworking classes.
If you want to continue this as reasonable adults, then just let me know...
My pleasure dear lady and sister in pondscum.
I just never understood why people would believe in some supreme being who literally offered nothing in return in this life, only mansions and streets of gold in the afterlife. You'd think that a supreme being, the only god in all the universe, would be inclined to stop his 9 year-old followers from being kidnapped, raped, and buried alive. OTOH, he showed himself to have a pretty deviant streak in the Old Testament, so sitting idly by while Jessica spends the last 3 days on earth worse off than how Jesus spent his last days isn't so surprising, really. God never cared about slavery (except he didn't want his chosen people to be enslaved, I guess-- screw the rest of the world). God ordered his followers to stone those he deemed bad (even those who merely gathered firewood on the Sabbath, or were bad children, or girls who had premarital sex), a punishment so violent that it's illegal in our country and most every other civilized country-- instead of using his superpowers to zap them or something more humane. God even advocates violent slaughter of the wives and children of his enemies (the idea of an omnibenevolent god being pleased with smashing babies against rocks and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is ridiculous to me and I'm not sure why it's not ridiculous to you and the rest of his believers).
Certainly God hasn’t provided me with a fairy tale life. I have never won the lottery, or much of anything for that matter. I have suffered through much more hardship than some and much less than others. What God has done for me is to provide me strength to survive an abusive and terrifying childhood, guidance when trying to pull my life together, and comfort when things have been more difficult than planned. So it might not be as “measly” as you thought.
It's unfortunate you had a tough upbringing. There's nothing divine about inner strength. Non-christian warriors throughout history were able to muster great inner strength. You give credit to God for something he didn't do. In fact, we're facing an enemy in the WOT who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause and they don't get inner strength to do something so difficult from God.
I take comfort in my belief that this world is temporary, but God’s world is not. Jessica has left the unfairness and cruelty of this world for a better place. I know her parents are still suffering, and I pray that God will provide some comfort from their pain.
I bet her grandmother has stopped praying for good things to happen and bad things to not happen. She prayed unceasingly for Jessica and it achieved nothing. Her whole church and town probably prayed that way, too, without any effect. There is no evidence that God is real or even has a world since he doesn't show himself in any way-- saving Jessica certainly would have been useful to tell the world he's still around after being away from his desk for 2000 years. I actually understand why you believe in God. It's no different than understanding why people who are in pain use narcotics. That doesn't make it something that you should be doing. Most believers don't even worship the guy in the Bible. They worship the guy they think should be in the Bible.
I hope this doesn’t sound preachy or lecturing. I am not that kind of Christian. I am only trying to explain my beliefs to you, not change yours. The fact that you can obviously care so much about an innocent life, tells me that you are a good person. Probably a far better person that some “Christians” that I know. Peace.
Thanks. I am very confident in saying that you don't need God to be a nice person, either. You could decide today that it's all fiction and still be generous and kind to your fellow man. I appreciate the conversation. Have a nice day.
I did not mean to insult you, not really. Please excuse me, and I am sorry for that.
Sometimes it takes a bit of sarcasm I think in order to get some attention around here.
I spent many many hours considering the book of Genesis and even a lot more in my College days learning about the higher criticisms of a book that meant so very much to me when I was a much younger man, and certainly still.
I will concede that many of my Professors challenged me in a lot of ways and that for a long time I was shaken in my faith and core beliefs.
If I could not believe in what the Bible had to say, then what else did I have?
In a word...”nothing!”
I’ve read the Book, more than once, and I have attempted to understand it and other things by studying at length. I have also made it a point to learn about certain other things over the years.
I consider myself to be rather informed, but ordinarily, I am not of a contentious nature. FR.com allows me a certain space to be a lot more aggressive and assertive than I ordinarily am in the course of my regular most ordinary life.
I have studied a bit of the sciences of chemistry, anatomy, microbiology, and some others, which I feel gives me some insights to the debates out here concerning the Bible, Evolution, and different Dogma.
I find it frustrating at times to see people posting on things which seem to me often to be either indicative of the fact that they are ill informed, or simply stupid.
I have personally found that the Bible is not at all a difficult collection to understand, yet I see so much posted (here and elsewhere) that is simply not in accord with the actual text.
Please excuse my rudeness earlier. I have had a lot of distractions, and that is not much of an excuse, but for now it is all that I have.
Your hoax links are hoaxes as usual
As I thought...you cannot provide the proof of this WW11 picture that you claimed..thanks for that...and my links are not hoaxes..as other posters, and lurkers, can very well see...so, now, where is this WW11 picture of the soldiers standing over the pterodactyle...you have still not produced it, nor have you produced any information about this photo...you have made this claim, now back it up, if you can...we will all be waiting for this proof, of your claims...
Ah, I see you are also waiting for this proof..I expect we may have a long wait...
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.