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.
Do you remember the previous conversations we've had about this topic where I asked you how many books or scientific articles regarding avian evolution you had read? Do you remember your response? NOTHING. That is because you have read zip, zilch, and nada about avian evolution. Your objections are based solely on religious prejudice. You couldn't even list to me some of the basic features that link the two groups. Yet in spite of your ignorance you have the arrogance to accuse someone else of "drinking the kool-aid." It is you who have drunk the YEC kool-aid and willingly swallow their lies without even lifting a finger to look at the evidence for yourself. You deserve the response that you got.
In case you should actually wish to get off your rear and do some reading, you could look up Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds by Luis M. Chiappe, or Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds by Philip J. Currie, or even the more unconventional Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory S. Paul. All of these contain all sorts of evidence discovered by paleontologists who dig up fossils and exhaustively record every tiny detail of their structure, thus doing real science--unlike creation "scientists" who prefer to sit around mocking paleontologists and lying about their discoveries.
How does evolution account for this?
You haven't presented me with a problem.
Geologists study rocks, btw, not evolutionists. Since rocks do not reproduce with variation and are not susceptible to natural selection, evolutionists tend to find them rather boring.
I would say rather that none of them are scientific evidence.
And I would agree. But then again, "scientific evidence" rests on sets of assumptions which are completely unverifiable empirically (which is really a better term to use rather than scientific evidence, in my less-than-knowledgeable opinion). Empirical evidence is routinely assigned a "higher" level of authenticity by short sighted members of the physical sciences community. Of course, they do this VERY selectively, and wind up being dishonest in their argumentation when they do so (although I really do not believe it is deliberate). Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
One of the basic and simple illustrations is that of gravity. You drop and object and it falls. Over and over. Never deviates. You experiment with different size objects and the results puzzle you and seem counterintuitive. From that you derive theories of mass attraction, call it "gravity" and do experimentations on all types of entities, from physical objects here on earth to phenomena observed in telescopes out in the far reaches of space. The results all seem reasonably(!) uniform, so we say we have a "law" of gravity. What completely escapes the notice of many physical scientists is the whole gaggle of unverified, unverifiable and YES, PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions (that is the reason for the coyote-ping) this "law" rests on. The fact is that empiricism and empirical "proof" can only keep statistics, and those statistics are pretty crappy if you try to be honest about truly avoiding "faith" assumptions. All you are left with is a statement that "this appears to have happened a number of times." Anything beyond that requires assumptions of the uniformity of matter/energy and the uniformity of the behavior of the universe.
Don't get me wrong. I am not assaulting these assumptions (indeed I believe it is impossible to deny in practice these and other "footprints" the Creator has left in the creation, but that is another issue for another thread). What I AM saying is that the "faith" that physical scientists rest on in making these assumptions is no different in its essence from SJ Gould's plumber's reliance on God (if you have read Gould's little tract on the creationism debate. if not, you should). They gather data, and make a deductive reasoned "guess" that seems to fit the data. However, the uniformity of matter is, remains, and will forever remain UNverifiable by empirical testing. All a scientist can say is "this appears to have happened over and over, and if it quits happening...., BOY, that will be a surprise!" (see Greg Bahnsen's debate with Stein, it is on the internet).
The big difference is that the religious man accepts the possibility of an external validation of theory (the conscious and perceivable but non empirically verifiable experience of God), while the empiricist says that such experience is suspect simply because it is non empirically verifiable...... as he stands with both feet firmly in the air.
Again, the difference is NOT that one group accepts empirical verification of data while the other uses "faith." The big difference is that both groups use "faith" (although in different objects) and one groups openly admits it, while the other group is blissfully unaware they are singing hymns and reciting creeds while mocking the other group for doing so.
Fossilization depends on having the right circumstances. If dissolved minerals are not present to become deposited in the bones, fossilization cannot occur.
I though DNA breaks down in H20?
We have no dinosaur DNA.
Or what about “soft bodied parts of other fossils found?
I assume you're talking about the tiny fragments of flexible material recovered from a T. rex femur following demineralization. We have found other flexible fossil remains before and no original organic matter remained. In fact, we know that the biomolecules in this fossil were extensively degraded. This is not dinosaur steak, as much as AiG may lie and claim it is.
Do you even bother to check your claims before making them?
Signed,
A Secular University Chemist1
I have been called much much worse, and it was usually deserved! No problem at all.
Don’t forget that they recently increased the age of the earth. :’-(
You're right and you're wrong. First, living a long time ago does not mean a group cannot still exist today. Otherwise we evolutionists would be hopelessly boggled by sharks, insects, lampreys, corals--all sorts of groups that are very ancient. Secondly, no organism has survived unchanged for millions of years. Modern examples are different species than the extinct ones. For instance, the living coelecanth is a different species than any fossilized ones, and much larger (most fossil specimens are about 8 inches long). The Wollemi pine also is a different species than the extinct members of its genus (and just a baby--its cousins are found fossilized just 2 million years ago).
lol thanks for the laugh- good one
[And perhaps you should not have referred to me as “the rabid coyoteman.”]
Would “MAngy Coyote” be more appropriate?
JS- Not that I beleive what evo says, but the person who found hte blood in the first place has come up with an elaborate hypothsesis of how it MIGHT have been preserved for what she believes is millions of years- There will never be evidnece enough to convince evo folks that something might not be as old as they think because some elaborate unprovable hypothesis will be advanced in order to explain it away. You can find the blood-finder’s hypothesis if you do a google search on her name. But there just is not enough evidnece on this great green earth to convince a person who is adamant that God couldn’t have specially created species that something found might not be as old as they think. To admit that would be to have to admit they’ve made a huge leap of faith that turned out to be wrong, and that is not somethign that goes down easy.
Is this Random Insult Day?
[Suppose scientists take water and run it over limestone rock.
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?]
Suppose nature were to experience a catyclismic event such as an eruption or a massive flood, and the water and or mud ran over sandstone and caused canyons in a matter of days, would that then challenge your belief that the grand canyon couldn’t have formed rapidly? I gave links to just such canyons being made in a matter of mere days.
[Is this Random Insult Day?]
It was a joke playing on the label that one fella gave coyote- “Rabid Coyote” Coyotes good for it- He had better be concidering hte far worse insults He’s thrown my way.
I would be willing to look at any science that you have.
But none of the information you posted makes the case that the Grand Canyon was formed in a few days. I think that most geologists would find that laughable. But seeing how there are many scientists who want me to believe global warming will destroy the planet in a few decades, I guess anything is possible.
Thanks for the support. Most people think we are wasting our time, but I prefer to believe what we say may reach some who are perhaps not sure either way.
That should be "Dr. Rabid Coyote" or "Dr. Mangy Coyote."
The K-T boundary is distinct in the Hell Creek Formation and has been dated reliably wherever discovered to 65 million years. Older strata in the Hell Creek Formation are chiefly dated by paleomagnetism, supported by biostratigraphy.
Ah. I try to start each day new—good for one’s blood pressure.
Plus I like to read myself talk. :-D
nbot understanding your point? Those other canyons are proof that canyons don’t take millions of years to form- so it leaves the very real possibility open that it didn’t take the grand canyon that long to form. You proposed a hypothetical for your assertion that the canyon must have taken a long time, and I posted evidences- not a hypothetical- which should be stronger evidnece, that canyons erode very quickly, thus making the case for the GC possibly not needing millionms of years- A catyclismic event could very well have created the canyon- the fact that under certain conditions, running water takes longer doesn’t undermine the idea that violent rushing water in massive amounts erodes very quickly- The pressure of a vast amount of water is absolutely astounding and violent in nature- your hypothesis does not use nearly the amounts that could have been created in the flood- so not sure why your hypothesis is appropoe to the issue?
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.