| You are obsessed. |
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?!
Huh?
Oh, I guess I couldn't tell from your post whether Ulrey was in or not in your text book. Since abiogenesis is not in evolution and not basic to the understanding of biology, it would not be crucial to study it.
It is really more chemistry than biology. However, I remember it being in college texts. I don't think it was mentioned in my HS text, but that was many many years ago, before the nonsense of creationism was a problem.
In nearly all cases, evolution, once begun is "punctual", with very little evidence of transitional forms. Note the experience of Charles Walcott in 1909 and the Burgess shale. He found an explosion of forms that didn't comport with his theories, so he shelved some 60,000 samples into drawers at the Smithsonian, where he was head, which weren't "rediscoverd" until the mid 1980s.
Note too the case of Stephen Jay Gould who actually changed Darwin's writings to exclude any refernce to God, which Gould evidently found "inconvenient" in his eyes.
Some "scientists", these guys.
I'd like to to suggests the writings of physicist Gerald Schroeder, particularly his The Science of God for some at least healthier, and strenuously wrought "objective" looks into the subject than either Walcott, Gould and a panoply of other "scientists" could evidently entertain.
It seems to me that biogenesis is "crucial" to biology from the standpoint of its underpinnings, rather than just "making-up" some convenient starting point from which to launch into the standard "evolutionist" line.
Best to You and Yours....
Macro and micro evolution are the same process. Scientists don't call into programs that spout superstitious nonsense.
Like to God a day is as a thousand years?
If you accept young earth creationism, you must reject sanity.
"I don't see how you can label creationism "nonsense" while the jury's still out, so to speak."
Science works through a peer reviewed stringent system of observation and analysis. There is not one peer reviewed paper for a "creation scientist/ID" con man in scientific literature.
The jury won't even meet on this one. There is no evidence for creationism except misinterpretation of the Bible.
Ping
Why are there so few large gaps between the large
classification groups in the fossil record of
vertebrates?
There are no discovered missing links, because once they are discovered they are no longer missing. Science can not show one piece of evidence where anything turned into something else. Besides, how could all this happen in just 6000 years.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahrrrgh
Evidence for evolution that wasn't called in:
Introduction:
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"
One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9).
snip
Conclusion: Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
"Peer review" long argued for a steady state universe where in The Bible it was ever maintained.
And Maimonides argued for the creation of "time" some thousand years before it was accepted "scientifically".
Obeservation, of course, is the modern key. My mind remains open.
"Evolution is incompatible with the Scriptures."
Not the way I read the Bible.
I was simply demonstrating that there is nothing but hot air in your arguments. There is no fluster there.
I don't really care if you come off your position, as I have yet to see anyone indoctrinated with the belief that a nonsensical literalist interpretation will get them into Heaven change.
I doubt if a good biology course would change that either.
But for anyone who is viewing our discussion, I must make it clear that you have no scientific evidence for your position and are using rhetorical devices not logic or science to falsly claim you have won an argument that you do not even understand.
"My mind remains open."
I think he means his cranium has a crack in it. ;-)
| You are obsessed. |
Pot Kettle
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!
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.