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.
The problem with your analogy is that humans are built from naturally found components. If humans were robots and all around us was carbon-based life forms, then you’d have quite an argument in favor of design. We (and other animals) are able to consume (most) plants because we’re all made from the same building blocks. The hilarity of creationists who hate evolution is that God went out of his way to design things using evolution— basic getting more complex, but with the basic still evident.
I'm late to this thread and when I came across the post you responded to, I clicked the replies to see if anyone had substantially rebuked the assertions. You seem to have done that, and more, in my opinion. Well done. Well done indeed.
My dad is the Tooth Fairy. I saw him take the tooth out from under my pillow and slip in a dollar bill. I told him I know all about it and he just wanted to make sure I didn't reveal his identity in public (you don't know my name, right?). If you tell me where you live, I'll make sure he gives you two dollars the next time he comes to your house for a tooth from your pillow.
Thanks for the ping!
There are neanderthal skeletons and cro-magnon skeletons.
If you can believe that new species can be created through differential reproductive success, then what’s so hard to believe about evolution?
I like the cut of your jib.
God delights in smashing babies against a rock and the rape of the wives of his enemies and the ripping open of pregnant women. He’s hardcore.
The fact that you did and she did not says what exactly about your God? If God helped me with some measly desire and then abandons this nine year-old, I'd refuse to accept anything from him-- like I wouldn't take gifts from the mob.
Specific to the text of Genesis, and leaving aside for the moment references by Christ and the correlation of the Sabbath, I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a twenty-four hour day with it's reference to evening and morning. I'm not sure how you could parse that into eons, even metaphorically. Certainly, if God wanted to convey to us, great lengths of time, he very easily could have done it. In fact, such an account probably would have made much more sense to the people of time, than poofing everything into existence for no apparent reason.
That said, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the days of Genesis do mean great lengths of time. It would follow then all the language of Genesis would somehow relate to the same great lengths of time the days refer to. That would pose a problem when considering the phrase "according to it's kind / from his kind" because that would indicate a stasis of fundamental qualities, of said lifeforms, throughout those great lengths of time, that would obviously be in conflict with evolutionary theory.
You would have to weave in and out of your logical interpretation of Genesis, picking and choosing what you want to suit your argument.
In principle, I'm not against such an interpretation. After all, if that's what God did, then that's what God did. But I just see nothing in the text to indicate such arguments have merit.
The only thing that makes sense is a literal interpretation. You either believe it or you don't. It's either true, or it's fiction. To me it's that simple.
I have. The majority of people were taught a whole structure of Darwinism in school and popular media, and many of them haven't thought to question it. For most people, the question doesn't come up in their daily lives. It wasn't important to me to evaluate Darwinism until I started teaching my children.
I don't understand why we can't agree that there are different ways of interpreting the physical evidence, but no interpretation is sufficiently persuasive, across the board, to constitute "proof."
It’s clear to me. I guess it’s because I believe the bible.
Can you spot their assumptions? You remember all of those huge salt deposits I mentioned? Those were removed from the sea by areas of saltwater being cut off from the sea and evaporating.
Did you know that the amount of iron in the ocean shows that it is only 140 years old? :-D Garbage in, garbage out.
My sincere congratulations!
Your dad owes me back pay. All he ever left me was a measly quarter.
An evolutionary throwback to her vicious velociraptor cousins! You're lucky she's comparatively so small. ;-)
Thanks, csense. I tend to avoid the crevo threads, but this one caught my eye. :-)
If you think that's the issue, then you have missed the whole picture. Most of those that are promoting evolution, dualism, or cultural relativism do not suffer under the illusion that they are right. They are pragmatists, believers in the idea that the ends justify the means, and see those ideas as mere tools in their assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The defeat of the gospel is the worldwide unifying goal that causes many to suspect conspiracies, and waste their time and energy chasing imagined conspirators.
That certainly would explain some!
I pretty much stopped reading there.
I am rather certain that TOE is a contrivance of a bunch of pointy headed arrogant geeks, but that don't mean I am soon to jump on the bandwagon of modern day ignoramuses either.
How dumb can people actually be?
I have not seen flypaper used since I was a kid. Weren't both sides of the strip sticky though?
To answer a question with a question, how dumb can people be when they look at an obviously undoctored photograph of WW II era troops in Australia standing over the carcass of what is clearly a pterodactyle, and still not understanding?
It's hard for some to come to grips with inconvenient facts.
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.