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.
According to Flood geology, those strata were laid down during the Flood, and therefore must have been mud at the time.
>>there is no evidence that a God exists
Really?
I am positive that God exists. Once in my life He spoke to me personally and it absolutely convincing.
But he does not seem to leave repeatable evidence. I have no proof except people that know me know my life changed that day.
So I think that its fair to say there is no evidence in the sense of we could gather around something and all agree that God has left proof. He seems to require faith rather than providing proof.
All those I mention are errors in scripture if you believe in a Bible that is to be taken literally and if you believe it to be without error. You like to pick and choose and lack the education to debate the subject. So I am dismissive of you because you like to have your cake and eat it too.
...I think that its fair to say there is no evidence in the sense of we could gather around something and all agree that God has left proof.
If by "we" and "all" you mean sentient humans, then such is the obvious nature of the evidence....
Answer me this before you haughtily dismiss me... what is three times zero? There you are.
That is still not right..that link goes directly to another pic with Civil War soldiers...~shrug~...where, oh, where, is this pic of the WW11 Australian soldiers standing over a pterodactyle...I will patiently wait for this WW11 picture to show up...
A most excellent find...bravo...
Yes. Really. Asserting that there is no evidence for God is one of the most asinine statements there could be.
You may claim that there is no CONVINCING evidence, or you may simply be befuddled in your terminology and substitute the word PROOF for EVIDENCE, but only someone completely bereft of any history would make such an idiotic assertion.
There is cosmological evidence for the existence of God
There is teleological evidence for the existence of God
There is ontological evidence for the existence of God
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal morality
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal religious nature of man
There is the evidence from history regarding the person of Jesus Christ. (specifically, the claims of Christ, the evidence for the resurrection, and the changed lives of apostles).
There is evidence for the existence of God in the claims of people who assert that they have experienced him directly (as you allude to below)
There is evidence for the existence of God in the very fact that people assume a rational dialogue makes sense, or a difference.
There is evidence for the existence of God in the specific "history told beforehand" documentations of everything from the rise and collapse of Mesopotamian kindgoms to the events surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ, some of which were foretold over 1000 years before their enactment.
All these and many more are clear evidences. You may not accept them as COMPELLING evidences and we could examine each to find out why, but to assert that there is no evidence is such a pile of balderdash that I wonder if anyone who has done anything but bullshit in a dorm room about religion can make such a completely idiotic statement. Such a person certainly has never EXAMINED anything on the subject, other than his own prejudices.
I am positive that God exists. Once in my life He spoke to me personally and it absolutely convincing.
Really? I can lay claim to no such experience. I suppose I should give your claim the respect you would appreciate and say "ok, maybe God (if there is a God) DID speak to this guy. I will have to have more details to decide if I think he is both honest and rational about the claim." OTOH, I could say "This is impossible. He is a self-deluded fanatic (or worse). Such claims do not belong in discourse with reasonable people." If I took the second course (which I do not), I still cannot say your testimony of meeting with God is NO evidence. I would simply say it was poor, or unconvincing, or at worst fraudulent evidence (if I thought you deliberately lying......., and I have seen religious people whom I believed to be deliberately lying about religious experiences).
As for the last paragraphs, I think part of the problem is with terminology and assumptions, and part is with people. It is a common fallacy of men to assume that "scientific proof" is somehow more secure, toughminded, rigorous and solid, and is decoupled from "faith" with is squishy, porous, emotionally based, and ultimately irrational. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, this is silly. Science is grounded on a great many suppositions which are completely unprovable, and not even scientifically supportable. They are simply accepted by faith.
That is ok, as all knowledge is faith based. It is only the cretin who bawls out "YOU can accept by faith anything you want, but **I** will stick with what is PROVABLE. For those dimwits, contempt is richly deserved, so why should I deny it to them?
Yes. Really. Asserting that there is no evidence for God is one of the most asinine statements there could be.
You may claim that there is no CONVINCING evidence, or you may simply be befuddled in your terminology and substitute the word PROOF for EVIDENCE, but only someone completely bereft of any history would make such an idiotic assertion.
There is cosmological evidence for the existence of God
There is teleological evidence for the existence of God
There is ontological evidence for the existence of God
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal morality
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal religious nature of man
There is the evidence from history regarding the person of Jesus Christ. (specifically, the claims of Christ, the evidence for the resurrection, and the changed lives of apostles).
There is evidence for the existence of God in the claims of people who assert that they have experienced him directly (as you allude to below)
There is evidence for the existence of God in the very fact that people assume a rational dialogue makes sense, or a difference.
There is evidence for the existence of God in the specific "history told beforehand" documentations of everything from the rise and collapse of Mesopotamian kindgoms to the events surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ, some of which were foretold over 1000 years before their enactment.
All these and many more are clear evidences. You may not accept them as COMPELLING evidences and we could examine each to find out why, but to assert that there is no evidence is such a pile of balderdash that I wonder if anyone who has done anything but bullshit in a dorm room about religion can make such a completely idiotic statement. Such a person certainly has never EXAMINED anything on the subject, other than his own prejudices.
I am positive that God exists. Once in my life He spoke to me personally and it absolutely convincing.
Really? I can lay claim to no such experience. I suppose I should give your claim the respect you would appreciate and say "ok, maybe God (if there is a God) DID speak to this guy. I will have to have more details to decide if I think he is both honest and rational about the claim." OTOH, I could say "This is impossible. He is a self-deluded fanatic (or worse). Such claims do not belong in discourse with reasonable people." If I took the second course (which I do not), I still cannot say your testimony of meeting with God is NO evidence. I would simply say it was poor, or unconvincing, or at worst fraudulent evidence (if I thought you deliberately lying......., and I have seen religious people whom I believed to be deliberately lying about religious experiences).
As for the last paragraphs, I think part of the problem is with terminology and assumptions, and part is with people. It is a common fallacy of men to assume that "scientific proof" is somehow more secure, toughminded, rigorous and solid, and is decoupled from "faith" with is squishy, porous, emotionally based, and ultimately irrational. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, this is silly. Science is grounded on a great many suppositions which are completely unprovable, and not even scientifically supportable. They are simply accepted by faith.
That is ok, as all knowledge is faith based. It is only the cretin who bawls out "YOU can accept by faith anything you want, but **I** will stick with what is PROVABLE. For those dimwits, contempt is richly deserved, so why should I deny it to them?
>> There is cosmological evidence for the existence of God
There is teleological evidence for the existence of God
There is ontological evidence for the existence of God
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal morality
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal religious nature of man
There is the evidence from history regarding the person of Jesus Christ. (specifically, the claims of Christ, the evidence for the resurrection, and the changed lives of apostles).
There is evidence for the existence of God in the claims of people who assert that they have experienced him directly (as you allude to below)
There is evidence for the existence of God in the very fact that people assume a rational dialogue makes sense, or a difference.
There is evidence for the existence of God in the specific “history told beforehand” documentations of everything from the rise and collapse of Mesopotamian kindgoms to the events surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ, some of which were foretold over 1000 years before their enactment.
All these and many more are clear evidences. You may not accept them as COMPELLING evidence<<
I would say rather that none of them are scientific evidence.
To say there is order and thus God is a philosophical argument - and even then Plato was talking a gods not God.
Cosmological evidence? That argument basically says that because the universe has a beginning and beginning have causes there is a god and he is the cause. Its really poor logic.
The life of Jesus. We have two references I am aware of outside of Church records. There were clearly Christians, from the Roman records. I believe in Jesus. But that doesn’t prove God.
I could go but in the end its all much like my experience. My experience is convincing for me but I don’t expect it to be convincing for you - I would, however encourage you to be open to hearing from Him. You won’t regret it.
And I agree with you about people who claim God spoke to them. Some do it for bad reasons and I think they are lying. One rule of thumb I use is to look at what they ask me to do because of their experience. If it doesn’t feel like God but feels like their desires then I am extra skeptical.
I have, in the end, concluded that God does not leave conclusive or scientific evidence and thus, depending what someone means by “evidence” I don’t think its stupid to say there is no evidence.
There are however plenty of first hand accounts - not just of God but of Allah and other gods. that is a kind of evidence so you have a point.
They've actually been saying that for some years now.
I first heard it in my Astronomy Course in my second year of college more than 30 years ago. That Course killed my GPA. I barely got a "C."
I'll be waiting for the presentation of some real evidence. Please spare me from the cartoons.
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.