| Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It does. you are not looking. |
Posted on 12/17/2004 2:13:45 PM PST by Rodney King
Bold letters are mine. I believe in Macro creation wtih micro-evolution, if that makes sense. What disturbs me is that this has to be the worst ever editorial in defense of creationism. It is embarassing and Farah is not doing us any favors
Why I believe in Creation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 17, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
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. How many listeners do you have? How many of them do you think are not Christians? Maybe that's why none 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. I'm sure that most of the people who take the time to write in are your readers, who are a self-selecting group
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.OK, fair enough but...
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. This is just silly. Absurd even. 5,000 years from now, should our ancestors assume that we had spider man and klingons simply because they are in our literature? Isn't it perfectly reasonable that a human who found a large tooth would dream up dragons?
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. Too bad we haven't found any fossils of two headed dinosaurs. The reality is that most of Dragon lore is of beasts that don't look like the dinosaurs that we have uncovered.
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? I'm not sure i fully beleive him, but I think it makes sense that A. Dinosaurs walked all over the earth. B. Man walked all over the earth later. C. The kinds of conditions that preserve dinosaur remain are also likely to preserve human remains.
And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured. What? See monsters have been captured? Where? This is what I'm talking about folks. You can not make claims like this without backup and not think that you are coming off like a total loon.
There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa. What? WHAT? Where? When? Says who? FARAH, YOU MUST BACK-UP EXTRAORDIANRY STATEMENTS!
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. Any bill of good we have been solved was presented in a better manner that your claims that we have captured sea dinosaurs.
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. Maybe, but your pathetic illogic and lack of backing up your incredible statements is worse.
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. So anything that has been drawn must have once existed? Unicorns? Klingons? The crazy aliens that L. Ron Hubbard wrote about?
If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down. Then please, where are these dinosaurs that we have captured and/or are still alive?
This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak.WHAT EVIDENCE?!
Actually, you are quite wrong. Science starts with a hypothesis, works up to a theory, and then works up to a law. The rejection of this by the liberals merely proves they firmly believe in the relativist and extreme view of science and truth.
By rejecting the principles of the natural sciences they discredit any attempt they make to claim scientific competence. Mere rejection on their part, although the fashionable thinking for so long, does not discredit the scientific principles.
In many ways, the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people who want to reject the truth because it is inconvenient. We have such things as Boyle's Law, Mendel's Law, the Law of Gravity, etc.
While these intellectual midgets reject the concept of scientific law, they have been promoting such mentally superficial rubish as quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc.
There is such a thing as absolute truth and necessary truth but they prefer to accept pseudo-science because they are afraid to be unfashionable.
God created evolution
You won't find this in the bible... you'll find just the opposite... therefore, you must be talking about a different God.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”
The Holy Bible (Re 4:11)
God created ALL things. Since evolution exists and is a fact, He must have created it. To deny that He created all things denies the one true God.
"Actually, you are quite wrong. Science starts with a hypothesis, works up to a theory, and then works up to a law. "
Actually, you are quite wrong.
Hypothesis: The deductions made after studying an occurrence, by collecting data about the occurrence, and turning it into useful information to back up your hypothesis.
Theory:In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
Law:A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions, for instance, the law of magnetism states that likemagnetic poles repel one another, while opposite poles attract.
Various hypotheses might eventually be raised to the status of theory. Theories explain an observed fact. There is the fact of evolution and the Theory that explains it.
Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics and do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions.
"the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people "
The real problem is creationists misinterpret the Bible.
And they tramped it down very well too.
Frankly, creation theory might have had a chance without that 6000 year garbage.
Biology texts discuss the abiogensis hypothesis, but it is not in the Theory of Evolution.
The only argument creationists have against evolution is putting the origin of life in it, when it is not there. It is a dishonest tactic and points out that there is not much of Jesus in their attitude or science in their Bible misinterpretation.
Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It is purely sophistry derived from faulty interpretation of Scripture.
The young Earth idea is particularly amusing, but it is far from the only kookiness in creation science/ID. The Noah tale contain many items that give scientists a belly laugh when creationists take them "literally".
| Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It does. you are not looking. |
A "theory of science" is essentially a fact. There is no such thing as "only a theory". You can say it is only a hypothesis, but a scientific theory is a very prestigious set of ideas and data to support it that support an observed phenomenon. In this case the observed fact is evolution.
Creationist misinterpretations of the Bible are internally inconsistent in the Bible and contrary to observed fact in nature.
Please give us the reference to any peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism.
I have never found even one.
The key part that you are conveniently overlooking: "but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments"
"Law:A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions, for instance, the law of magnetism states that likemagnetic poles repel one another, while opposite poles attract." Inadequate definition. Laws can be said to be universal or relational.
"Theories explain an observed fact." <---Contrary to the requirement of demostration.
"There is the fact of evolution and the Theory that explains it." <---just because your science teacher's favorite textbook says it is a fact doesn't make it so. A lot of tripe has been put into textbooks.
"Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics and do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions." Universal laws do not vary under any conditions. Relational laws do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions.
"Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics" <---incorrect; too much importance placed upon math (deductive reasoing); not enough importance placed upon inductive reasoning and the highest form or reasoning; most scientific laws have nothing to do at all with mathematics.
"the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people "
The real problem is creationists misinterpret the Bible.
| Please give us the reference to any peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism. I have never found even one. Like I said.... you havn't looked. |
I have looked. There are none. I don't think you understand the nature of the cause you apparently seek to defend.
This has nothing to do with biology.
I believe the Bible is true, but I probably don't believe what you say the Bible says is true.
Nevertheless, the Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. I am not going to quibble about definitions with you.
A Theory is not just a guess. You cannot say "it only a theory" when it comes to science.
The Word says it is so.
Even if I didn't believe the Word it is a matter of simple observation for me.
There is no way I can reason that all things i.e. everything just happened.
The basic tenets of scientific observation rule out the very notion.
Now do I believe that species adapt? Yes, I do.
Survival of the fitest? Yes, I do.
Jesus certainly seemed a fine rabbi.
And, the biology text I mentioned did not discuss any origins of life hypotheses.
Ulrey is an "origins of life" hypothesis.
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.