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.
“Horner said he plans to send crews to Mongolia and Montana this summer to look for other fossils that are “exquisitely well-preserved.” He noted that the protein found in B. rex was doubly protected. Not only was it hidden inside a dense, large femur bone, but the bone was 60 feet below the top of the outcrop and under 1,000 cubic yards of rock. That protection kept the fossils from being contaminated by bacteria, the atmosphere or modern ground water.”
As I said, englobement. And no question in the article about Brex’s age which was placed at 68 mill.
What semi-related theories might those be? What point do you think scientists are trying to prove?
Although I suppose you have never tried to categorize a list of objects, I'll assume that you, like most humans, are at least somewhat familiar with the process. In any case where you have several similar objects that need categorizing, some criteria for doing so is necessary, is it not? What is so strange that scientists have developed different techniques for categorizing living organisms? In what way does a categorization process mean scientists can't prove their point?
"“species concept”? A “scientific philosopher”?
Are you saying that philosophy is unimportant in developing criteria for categorization? Or perhaps you are saying that philosophy itself is unimportant?
"The probability of creating one single blood protein by chance from inorganic matter is 10 to the 850th power.
And the probability of the genome you yourself possess is 43,100,000,000, that's 4 to the 3,100,000,000th power (now that looks really big doesn't it?, I could make it look even bigger if I use binary), yet I'm not going to suppose that you could not possibly exist.
Why you might ask? (then again you might be one who never asks why) Because you (and your genome) are just a slight modification of something similar. Now things (objects, numbers,... genomes) can change not only through modification of what already exists but through addition or subtraction, ... or we can do both at the same time.
Would you believe that some very complex things can be the result of adding a number of less complex things together? I do! An artist does it when creating a painting out of single simple brush strokes, a mechanic does it by mating simple bolts with simple aluminum castings, birds do it by building some rather complex nests out of simple twigs and 'shiny things', a star does it by building ever larger atoms, compression waves and collisions in space do it by building larger atoms than even stars can build, and chemical reactions do it by building ever more complex molecules.
What would you say if I told you a blood protein could be built of less complex molecules by simply adding them together? What would you say if I told you the length of the protein has nothing to do with its complexity and that all your probability calculations are made more dramatic by arbitrarily increasing the length of the molecule?
What is the number of possible (based on chemistry) molecules which could do the same job as your blood protein? What is the number of possible molecules which could do a similar job with only a minimal change? How many additions are necessary to adapt a smaller molecule to the job of a larger molecule?
Did you know that some seventy amino acids have been discovered in space and on meteorites? They are the result of supernovae and collisions in space. We have even duplicated their production by smacking simpler molecules together. Did you also know that that blood protein you are so fond of probably uses some of those very amino acids? What's the probability of that? Jeez, it must be pretty high.
Or it [the probability calculation] must be pretty unimportant.
I'm afraid that your probability calculation is nothing but a lot of hot air and doesn't in any way address how science understands the evolutionary process.
BTW, where did you ever get the idea that a specific blood protein needs to appear all at once and by chance?
"The latest scientific figure on how many atoms there are in our universe is 10 to the 85th power.
What exactly does the number of atoms in the universe have to do with the development of complexity? As you should know, that number is just a tool used by creationist propagandists. They have many more tools available. In fact the number seems to be growing.
Is it more logical to believe that God created us or philosophize against absolutely ridiculous odds with zero proofs.
You show me some realistic probability calculations and then we'll talk. You might also build one showing the probability of a God existing, just for laughs.
I don't have the patience to get into a discussion with someone who believes that man and dinosaurs lived together on a 6,000 year old Earth. Their debating tactics resemble those of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Still more questions to be answered, and it wouldn’t matter how well it is protected, doesn’t soft tissue degrade rather easily unless artificially (man-made) preserved in a lab?
Though I will look into englobement further, the processes involved. (Not tonight, tomorrow sometime.).
The ones that say “evolution is heresy, and anti god. Those who do not beleive in god, who dont accept Christ are not going to be saved” kinda give me the heeby jeebies.
“They may claim 68 million years, but where (How) did they date them..by stratification..?”
Probably.
“Still more questions to be answered, and it wouldn’t matter how well it is protected, doesn’t soft tissue degrade rather easily unless artificially (man-made) preserved in a lab?”
I don’t know. If something is free from oxidation or radiation(sunlight), chemically it can remain the same almost indefinitely(relatively speaking). Something that is englobed still has its own oxygen, and hydrogen(acids) to degrade it. Hense my “very bad tasting steak” comment.
Yeah, it always bothered me that they can condemn 2.5 billion people in Asia to automatic eternal damnation, something that seems as easy for them as throwing away a stale bagle.
I guess they figure all the Hindus and Buddhists are going to arrive at the pearly gates and find out that since they're not on the VIP list, not only do they not get to join the festivities, they get to burn in hell for all of eternity. That's not a party I want to be invited to.
Protein Fragments Sequenced in 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex
NC State Paleontologist to Present Theories of Fossil Preservation at AAAS Conference
I don't see anything right away that details the dating, but likewise there does not appear to be anything to suggest these specimens are consistent with a young earth idea.
Off to bed. Night!
Can you provide geological evidence that mountains that are 40-60 million years old collapsed to sea level and then returned to their original height during the time of Noah?
The bread based food, not the virus.
Sorry I didn't get the chance to acknowledge this last night, but, for the record, I don't have the authority to judge you on these matters. Hell, I don't even have the authority to judge myself...
Anyway, thank you for sharing that with me.
“W>>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.”
Well, at least you are honest about your reliance on faith. The poster who claims my statement was stupid, etc., has no evidence to offer. Your position apparently is that of Soren Kierkegaard, the Christian existentialist who recognized that religious belief is “irrational” by any common definition, and that belief therefore requires the so-called “leap of faith,” a concept usually attributed to him. Of course, I disagree with any need or reason to make that leap of faith, but I particularly find it puzzling that so many people these days believe they can point to “evidence” of a God, or that they can “prove” God’s existence.
I am always curious when I hear someone say, as you wrote, that there was a time when God “spoke to me personally.” I am guessing you don’t mean you heard an actual “voice” but rather that you simply surmised some kind of intervention in your life occurred to assist you. I can understand how someone might believe that, yet frankly I don’t find it very persuasive.
Even the big bang demanded matter to be pre-existent.
It will always come down to something from nothing and science can't come close.
Early geologists? In 1830? I thought you might have said millions of years ago. There was a flood. God said so.
What a joke. It's your religion and therefore it's faith.
Think Grand Canyon. Oops, there I go pointing you to something geologic. Hopefully you can handle it. I know, shocking.
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.