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.
I am retired, thanks for asking...I can post whenever I like, for however long I like...why would that interest you tho?...
Your claim of another picture remains completely unsubstantiated and thus, it does not exist, as far as I am concerned...and no, your word is not adequate...I want to see the picture...surely such a picture, as you portray it, would be widely available...so until you produce it, I will just be content that there is no other picture..when you find it, I am sure you will let us all know about it, as we all anxiously await such proof...
...There are lots of things we can prove and disprove without being able to replicate them in a lab. Surely, even you wouldn't dismiss astronomy as hokum because we can't get a star into a bottle.
But we can observe the light, we can measure the wavelength characteristics, we can compare these light spectrum to light spectrum of known materials (which we have observed in the lab), and we have ways of measuring distances. So although we cannot 'shove the star in a bottle', we can make some fairly reasonable measurements and come up with data driven conclusions.
In fact, evolution is tested on a daily basis.
If we are talking about 'micro-evolution', i.e., natural selection, or within-Kind variations - I agree. If we're talking about the development of a new 'Kind' -- e.g., a culture of bacteria finally sprouting legs and walking away with its petri dish tucked under its arm; or one of those fruit-fly mutation experiments finally producing a butterfly -- I think not...
Scientists, for example, can use the theory of evolution to make predictions about where fossils will be found, in what layers of rock, and what they will look like.
And if a fossil ends up in the 'wrong place', the data is tossed out as a 'freak event' (no conspiracy - its just hard not to toss out the odd measurement/datapoint that disagrees with expectations...)...
Scientists also use morphological data to make genetic predictions, and vice versa, again something you'd only expect to be able to do with the theory of evolution.
Again, I believe we are talking about 'micro-evolution' - on which point we are in agreement.
You're coming dangerously close to factual relativism -- because I can't prove a negative, because the Deity could always have forged the evidence used to support evolution -- you're trying to say that our explanations are equally correct. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and one that should trouble you.
Maybe it would trouble me, but since I'm a non-evolved knuckle-dragger, you lost me on the 'factual relativism' comment...but let me attempt to respond anyways...
I wasn't trying to say that our explanations were equally correct (because of course I'm right, and you are wrong...) - but that we're spending a lot of time arguing about something that cannot be scientifically proved - And the outcome of said argument does not effect useful, usable, science.
The outcome of this argument is important - because the societal and theological implications are quite profound (e.g., man is a derivative of an animal; some 'races' of man are more evolved than others; God is either nonexistent, or a remote hands-off entity who may have done something with respect to Creation billions of years ago; etc) - but the frame of reference one takes with respect to Creation does not effect scientific work.
That is, whether or not I believe man was created in the not too distant past (as described in the Bible), or whether I believe man is the outcome of billions of years of chemicals transitioning to amino acids transitioning to proteins transitioning to life ..., does not effect how I run/design tests, experiments, etc., today...
Now granted, I would prefer a doctor working on me who thought I was made in the image of the divine Creator versus one who thought I was a deficiently evolved slab of proteins and bone ... but the first point on which I'd choose the doctor would be based on his credentials and skills, and not on his beliefs regarding Creation.
So the term expectation is used...And?...what do you conjecture from that?
My hubby had cancer surgery recently for malignant melanoma...the ‘expectation’ was that the whole tumor load was removed...the pathology reports confirmed that expectation...if it had been otherwise, further actions would have been taken...the expectation was indeed correct...if it had been incorrect, measures would have been taken to correct it...
You seem to think that ‘expectation’ is a bad word...why, exactly?
Ah, so I should give up waiting for ES to produce that photo...frankly, it is as I suspected, there is no such photo...I would be happy tho, to be proved wrong..unlike most of those who support evolution, I do think that it is possible for the Loch Ness monster, and other related sea monsers to still be alive today, and if I believe that they might exist, I could just as easily believe that a pterodactyle still was alive today...
But I need proof, and certainly not someones completely unsubstantiated claims such as I have seen here today...such claims are easily dismissed...
So, based on that argument, apparently you don't consider little issues like who wrote the Bible, why said unknown(s) wrote it, when said unknown(s) wrote it, etc. to be important. You have a copy and that's all you need to know.
Yea, you're right, I can't argue with that!
But just out of curiosity, which translation of which version do you happen to have?
Well if the ark didn’t hold all the animals that exist on Earth where do all the animals we have now come from? Evolution.
Please stop being a fool.
Nothing that you would agree with, I'm sure....at least, that's my expectation.
You seem to think that ‘expectation’ is a bad word...why, exactly?
I don't think it's a bad word. In fact, I'm not quite sure what a bad word is.
Anyway, I hope your husband is doing well...
This is also wrong:
“6 Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
Had there been an actual DOME we would have crashed through it. Now, I’d be willing to even believe that it’s metaphorical, but still...
Nonsense.
It was posted just a month or so back, and I know that you and b_sharp both were on the thread.
Do you ever post an honest comment?
For your amusement.
We can be quite certain however that the huge clade which contains the dinos, aside from birds, is extinct. We could be wrong but that chance is quite small.
In any case it doesn't lend anything to creationists who through their arrogance believe a single sighting of a dinosaur would disprove all of the ToE and its many tenets.
Why do people think that when something is called extinct, and then they find out they are not actually 100% completely extinct, that somehow does damage to ToE?
"Well, it would if it were a prediction of the theory...not that I'm saying that it is mind you."
The theory predicts many things, including that extant species will have some common ancestor in the past. It does not, nor should it predict that there is a time limit on the lifetime of any species. If you believe that evolution in any way states that a species 'must' evolve into a different species then you are mistaken. Not even Darwin believed that.
The reason we believe populations to be extinct is because there is no evidence they exist today and their fossil record terminates 'relatively' abruptly.
"I have noticed though, that many of the articles posted here on this forum, concerning evolution, use the term "expectations."
Predictions in science are specific statements. Expectations are the logical consequences of the evolutionary thought process.
What you just posted in this post is the pure nonsense...if you posted this pic as you claim, and you posted it just a month ago, then post it again...surely you have it available...
My comments are more honest than your own, anyone can see that..
Thank you, I am greatly amused...thanks for the laugh...
Then you should have no trouble finding it.
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.