Replies

This is an incredibly weak attempt at creating and attacking a straw man of evolution. The author apparently is more accustomed to appealing to emotion than he is in actually using logic.

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.

First he builds a false dichotomy by claiming that the only reason evolutionary proponents would not call is because of a fear or reluctance based on a lack of trust in the science. The dichotomy he builds is that if they have valid reasons they would call in and if they do not have valid reasons they would avoid calling in. There are many other reasons why evolution proponents would not call in, including but not limited to:

- he has very few listeners who are evolutionary proponents because those proponents gave up long ago and no longer want to waste their time listening to his nonsense.
- those few evolutionary proponents(EPs) that do listen decided his rant was not worth responding to.
- those even fewer EPs considering responding realized no argument, no point, no amount of evidence would be accepted.
- all EPs were busy at work trying to make a living.
- his call screener placed EPs at the back of the queue.

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.

Next he attempts to slide in an appeal to popularity, assuming of course that his audience would accept that science is based on the number of lay people who believe in it. Unfortunately he was correct in that assumption. However, by that standard then Astrology should be considered to have a significant truth value.

What is and should be considered of high confidence level in science are conclusions based on the rigorous application of the scientific method and the peer review process, whether that conclusion agrees with the beliefs of the majority of lay people or not. Science is not a popularity contest.

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.

Except where it contradicts itself and proposes events not possible given the known 'laws of nature'.

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!

And as we all know this author is an expert in Evolution.

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.

Interesting that the earliest 'dragons' looked like serpents with (or in some cultures, without) short legs, nothing like the majority of fossils so far found.

We have also found ancient drawings of animals not found in extant nor extinct populations, such as Pegasus, minotaurs, griffins, Olympian Gods, Jackal Gods, leprechauns and a fair number of other 'beings' which are imaginative extrapolations and composites of existing organisms.

I guess the author believes that humans in the past are somehow less intelligent than we are today and had rather poor imaginations and story telling abilities. He must also believe that dinosaur fossils have only been available for discovery for a few hundred years.

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?

So far all of the purported man footprints alongside dinosaur footprints have been shown to be misinterpretations or outright fraud. This is so well known that a number of Creationist sites have suggested people not use this argument. I believe Coyoteman has posted those links a few times.

I would also like to see a cite for the discovery of dino fossils alongside human remains.

And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.

They have been captured? Where are the cites for this information?

This is nothing but an argument by assertion, without some data behind the comment it is worth nothing.

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.

As opposed to the creationist's normal process, and one this author actually stated earlier in this article, of assuming the Bible is correct and any evidence found which contradicts this is to be either ignored or corrupted.

Why has the author not bothered to list some of this evidence that science is ignoring? I know I would be interested in seeing some.

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.

The author is really viewing ancient peoples as stupid and without imagination assuming that they did not find their own fossils and could not imagine what the original animal would have looked like. I guess they only had the ability to draw living animals they were in contact with. Such a pity when we can think so far beyond that.

On top of that, it doesn't matter if some very ancient animals were alive at the time of man.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is complete nonsense, the discovery of dinosaurs alive today (outside of birds) would not affect the truth value of evolution one iota, just as the discovery of coelacanths, the existence of sharks (or any other fish) and crocodiles does not affect the validity of the theory. In evolution it is not the length of time a species survives but when a species begins. Speciation is about genetic isolation where one subgroup 'can' remain the roughly same while the other changes over time.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak.

Bologna! We speak about coelacanths, sharks, turtles, and other 'living fossils' all the time. That they are alive today is irrelevant. There is no time limit imposed upon population evolution.

This author shows a rather poor grasp of evolution, perhaps he should either avoid talking about it or get an education, unless of course he is attempting to pull a 'Coulter' where knowledge would be a bad thing.