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.
“Or the fact that they found what many have confirmed as dried dino blood? Did these survive for how ever millions of years..?
I though DNA breaks down in H20?”
“DNA from the animals and plants that populated Siberia and Alaska up to 395,000 years ago has been recovered from specks of permafrost.
The discovery of these genetic fragments - by far the oldest DNA sequences yet authenticated”
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3641
Long after dino times. By 64 million years actually.
http://www.icr.org/article/2033/
Dino bood, and possibly DNA, insect DNA found in “20-65 Million” year old bone, amber..?
This clearly, acording to evolutionary record, is very old bone, but there was clearly blood found in the bone (not totally fossilized). Now how can that be..DNA and biological enzymes break down fairly easily once an animal has died in nature!
These results were confirmed by the NC State University!
I really do not understand this post and am confused by it. Has someone complained about a post of yours and gotten it pulled? Just for the record, I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL DO THAT. I think that kind of behavior (which is common on FR, btw) is childish, immature, stupid, and not conducive to free speech. If you are screaming four letter words at me, I will likely just ignore you (there is a greasemonkey script to twit out posters you have just grown not to be able to stand anymore, btw).
As for attacking YOU, I don't even know you. I think your posting of the "errors" in the bible to be one step shy of cretinous, but you already know that. As much as I detest the pretentious pseudosophisticated postings by people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about, I would go to the wall to be sure they are allowed to post them. How else to show them to be the shallow, ignorant drivel masquerading as they are for critique? So what? You hate the bible and what it stands for. Big deal. Others MUCH brighter than you (or I) have made much more cogent attacks. If I am so insecure in my belief that I can't brook some person attacking it who barely has enough knowledge of it to misrepresent it, then why bother defending it?
Someone on this thread reported me to the moderators and now they have me on moderated status pending being zotted.
Since I can’t really respond because some idiot reported something I said to you...this post will have to float around until some clerk at FR allows it to go through.
Well someone on here wants to silence me... Your the obvious suspect.
(I am not being sarcastic)
shouldn’t have said that about you, I have was wrong!!
Good enough!
Well I don’t see how they can explain away something like half-fosslized dinosaur bones such as were found in AK and Montana?Or the fact that they found what many have confirmed as dried dino blood? Did these survive for how ever millions of years..?
I though DNA breaks down in H20? Or what about “soft bodied parts of other fossils found?
Millions of years old..? I don’t think so..
What you are seeing is some new discoveries being made in science. These discoveries were not accurately portrayed on the creationist websites, so you may have received the wrong information about what actually was discovered.
The "half-fosslized dinosaur bones" from Alaska were new to me, so I checked into them. I was under the impression that that age would require full fossilization. I am not sure of the exact method (somewhere between freezing and fossilization), but the Alaskan bones were indeed more like bones than fossils. But the age of those finds was still placed in the 65+ million year range, which is where they should be. I would think that the oddity here is the less than complete fossilization rather than an abnormally young age.
"dried dino blood" is a bit of an exaggeration. Leave the creationist sites alone and google the recent scientific accounts of the "red stuff" found in these dinosaur bones. Rather than hamburger, it is very small amounts of largely mineralized material that, when the minerals are dissolved, leaves some minor residual proteins. There is not enough organic material for good DNA sequences, but rather minimal protein sequences. And again, the dating puts this find at 65+ million years old.
I don't find any evidence in either of these cases that the dinosaurs survived significantly later than 65 million years, or that the young earth idea is supported.
But, don't take my word for it. I am not a specialist in dinosaurs or fossils. Google the problem and read the scientific reports and see what they say.
I appreciate your quick response to my post, and that you turned your original post into a serious question. I am always willing to respond to that kind of a question.
(But I reserve the right to apply serious sarcasm to sarcastic posts, and outright scorn to idiotic posts!)
I don't know. I do know it wasn't me and I see no reason from your posts to assume you have done anything zotworthy. If you think these things get tempers a heavin', try going into an immigration thread, if you are libertarian in your basic philosophy, and you believe in no welfare with relatively open borders. It makes the crevo threads look like narcoleptics anonymous.
Anyway, I never have reported anyone and never will, and I am sorry some twit felt the need to do so to you. I might think your ideas horrendous and I may believe your presentation of them worse. However, the best way to deal with that is not to SUPPRESS speech like that. If you think I am making a total fool of myself, the best way to attack my foolishness is to QUOTE me, no? Just makes sense to me.
If anyone has links to that picture that was referred to, yesterday, on this thread, would you please post a link to it?...I am talking about the picture of the WW 11 Australian soldiers, standing over a recently deceased pterodactyle...I have seen all the other pictures, mainly with civil war soldiers standing over the carcass of the pterodactyle, but those have been shown to be fakes, and hoaxes...
If anyone finds this particular picture, would you please post it, or at least a link to it, and hopefully some corresponding documentation about the picture...
I want to see this picture, as the claim has been made, that it exists, and if it exists surely someone has access to it...I have not been able to find it anywhere, maybe someone else has better resources, or better search skills than I do..
Anyway, thanks in advance to anyone who comes up with this picture, and corresponding documentation..
Sentis has been banned, tho perhaps he will be able to read what you have said...I agree completely what you said to him/her...
Geez - give it a rest. If you're worried about being zotted, quit being a jerk. That's the least you could do since you're here under a new ID.
Bye now.
Well I appreciat your rather polite and well discussed post! That’s the way it should be.. (I believe so as a Christian, anyway..).
Coyoteman I think the problem acutally arises when one finds that these “blood”-and yes they aren’t fully examined, but many chemists and biologists haved states these can only have been blood! Like I was saying the real problem comes when one sees that things like blood and DNA easily and readily bio-degrade when left to nature..also that some of these bones were found not only in Alaska (where freezing would (one would presume) considerably lengthen the time that tissue/bone would be preserved), but some bones were found buried in Cretecious rock in MT).
It is an enigma to (darwinists) yet I would contend they were from Dinos that died much later..possibly only thousands of years ago.
How were they “dated” to 65million years (as you say) can you provide me with a link, becuase if it just was by “stratification” or other such dating, well then that may be disputed.
Please provide me with a link.
I read the article. It doesn’t come close to saying they found DNA. They say they found something LIKE evidence of soft cells. In other words they found amino acids. Most fossils have no actual organic(read proteins, or amino acids). They do break down pretty fast in a regular environment(read surface of the earth). The writer of this article takes free license with what this discovery means. There are 3 types of fossilization. Mineralisation, encrustation, and englobement. The first two don’t leave any of the original specimen behind other than minerals and carbon(hense carbon dating). Englobement is where the specimen is airtight encased. Take a steak and put it in an airtight freezer and let it sit for 65 million years and you will have yourself a rather bad tasting steak but it will still be identifiable as a steak. This is the rarest form of fossil because over time the shell created around a specimen gets broken and the specimen destroyed. Now I don’t have access to the NC scientists original study but I’d be willing to bet that it was a case of englobement and that additional carbon dating will put that ole TRex right back where he belongs in the Cretaceous Period.
I must correct you on this. Carbon 14 dating only goes back about 50,000 years. For older materials, you need other forms of radiometric dating.
Here are some good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Then they clock the amount of time a certain amount of water takes to erode a certain amount of limestone.
They then transpose that to the Grand Canyon and calculate the amount of time it would have taken for water to erode such a massive landscape (scientific estimates around 6 million years), would that in any way challenge your belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Correction: Carbon dating if they can do it, wont prove that T Rex was from the Cretaceous Period. Just way past what young earthers believe.
I posted my correction before reading your post. Yep, you are right.
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.