Why I believe in Creation

Worldnetdaily ^ | today | Joe Farah

[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?!

[shubi]

This is the most evidence I have seen for creationism.

This is very convincing. I think I am going to Kentucky to pay 15 bucks to visit the creationist museum over there. Do you think they will have a Wilma character and Dino there?

[sayfer bullets]

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.

That's quite an aggressive assertion for someone who hasn't mastered sentence structure.

[Chuckling...] $10 bucks says your that neigborhood kid that always came up with the "forcefield" thing after someone beat you to the draw with their cap-gun.

As for an intelligence that has the capacity to create an universe: Such an intelligence may not be a deity at all. Religious faiths from antiquity have argued that the universe was created by an entity who was less than God. Andrie Linde suggests it might be possible to create one in the lab: stanford.edu

God bless,...by the way.

[shubi]

$10 bucks says I was too busy playing baseball.

Have any evidence yet that refutes evolution?

[sayfer bullets]

Good answer.

There's plenty without my need to possess it.

[shubi]

"There's plenty without my need to possess it."

If there was any, science would drop evolution like a hot potato. There is no evidence for creationism. None.

But there is a lot of evidence that creationism is nonsense.

[js1138]

I have to give credit where credit is due. It's a good analysis.

[sayfer bullets]

I didn't say anything about "Creationism".

The anti-God attack mode kicked in a little quick there, don'tcha think?.

Resistance to scientific (or any, for that matter) challenges of macro-evolution is dogmatic. Deity is not necessary to prove it is insufficient. That the "possibility of" higher intelligence or power can be included in those alternatives drives religious darwinists mad. They, and you, require the direct connection of any challenge (of your faith) to the Christian God and Bible. I find that extremely interesting...and humorous.

[Polybius]

There is no conflict between the Bible and science if the Bible is interpreted in a reasonable manner.........shubi

This is what it's really about isn't it?... you cannot see, therefore you cannot believe. Your statement makes it pretty clear that your faith in science is greater than your faith in God........Safrguns

It is agreed that Christ used parables as a teaching tool, is it not?

Why would a belief in a similar use of parables in the Bible mean a lesser faith in God?

Was there really a flesh and blood "cleverer than all the other animals" talking snake having a discussion with Eve or was that a parable?

Is the Bible meant to teach us how to Heaven or to teach us how the Heavens go?

[Safrguns]

Why would a belief in a similar use of parables in the Bible mean a lesser faith in God? 2 Timothy 3:5 Was there really a flesh and blood "cleverer than all the other animals" talking snake having a discussion with Eve or was that a parable? Satan is not without power. He is capable of and known for transforming his appearance. Is the Bible meant to teach us how to Heaven or to teach us how the Heavens go? The Bible is meant to tell us about Jesus, and His sacrifice to save man from eternal separation from God. If you know anything about the bible, you must be aware that it is saturated with accounts of supernatural events which totally defy all physical laws known to man. To try and explain away some of them as metaphorical or symbolic fictitious events can only lead to a dismissal of all supernatural events, and the conclusion that the entire bible is nothing more than biggest sci-fi novel of all time. So... is it truth? or is it fiction? That's what YOU are supposed to decide for YOURSELF... But you cannot have it both ways, and also claim to know very much about the bible.

[Safrguns]

The anti-God attack mode kicked in a little quick there, don'tcha think?. Nicely done Bullets! Oh yes!... I believe in God!... (as long as you interpret Him reasonably) Oh No!... There is no creator!... (laughing my evolved buttocks off here)

[Polybius]

If you know anything about the bible, you must be aware that it is saturated with accounts of supernatural events which totally defy all physical laws known to man.

So is Greek mythology and every other epic literature of every other civilization of that era.

To try and explain away some of them as metaphorical or symbolic fictitious events can only lead to a dismissal of all supernatural events, and the conclusion that the entire bible is nothing more than biggest sci-fi novel of all time. So... is it truth? or is it fiction? That's what YOU are supposed to decide for YOURSELF... But you cannot have it both ways, and also claim to know very much about the bible.

Genesis 1 writes that God created the Beasts before he created Man:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2 writes that writes that God created Man before he created the Beasts :

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

If we are supposed to see Genesis not as a religious parable that teaches us that God created both Man and Beast but, rather, as an explanation as to how, exactly, God did that then which one of the different Genesis accounts is true?

Why is there never an endless agument between Genesis 1 "Beast Firsters" and Genesis 2 "Man Firsters"?

Could it be that it does not matter since the Big Picture is that God created both?

Could it be that even those who insist on strict interpretation of some verses in Genesis switch to "parable mode" when confronted with an obvious contradiction?

[sayfer bullets]

They do not contradict.

[Safrguns]

The answer to an apparent contradiction is not necessarily to throw one out in favor of the other, but rather to identify what went wrong in translation. Genesis 1 is a brief summary of creation of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2 retells parts of that account, going into greater detail about man and beast. It is very easy to assume from Genesis 2 that the creatures God formed for Adam to name were the first creatures created, but does not state that as fact. I would further submit that maybe God didn't finish creating new creatures for Adam to name for quite a long time. Genesis 1 sets the time lines and order. Genesis 2 describes that order in more detail. The apparent contradiction is probably the result of a poorly translated word in Genesis 2 describing tense.

[Safrguns]

They do not contradict He has a point... it is a confusing comparison. Where do you think the problem is?

[Polybius]

The answer to an apparent contradiction is not necessarily to throw one out in favor of the other, but rather to identify what went wrong in translation.

Exactly.

Which is why I don't worry too much if "Day" means 24 hours or if it means an "Era" of 200 million years. Precise words can get quite muddled with the re-telling of a story but the main point.....God creared all.....remains the same.

[Polybius]

.....God creared all.....remains the same.

See what I mean. :-)

".....God created all..."

[shubi]

You don't have to say anything about creationism. It is amusing that those that attack evolution now have to cover the fact they are creationists with a misinterpretation of the Bible as their only "data".

I also think it is amusing that when backed into a corner, creationists always accuse a brother Christian of not believing in God. That doesn't sound like they are really my brother at all.

[shubi]

God created evolution as a way to allow life to change as Earth changed. Since He created evolution, to deny its power is to deny God's power.

[Safrguns]

>>> Which is why I don't worry too much if "Day" means

In this case, I think it was important to God that we didn't mis-understand Him... which is why He defines what He means by 'day' in precise terms in Gen 1 as a 24 hour period.

[Safrguns]

>>> Since He created evolution, to deny its power is to deny God's power.

Yes... you keep saying this.
You also keep saying there is no creator. (no creationism)
You cannot have it both ways.