Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I believe in Creation
Worlnetdaily ^ | 12/17/2004 | joe farah

Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-716 next last
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.


1 posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:39 PM PDT by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Sad isn’t it? Yet there are so many on FR who’ll believe anything that requires them not to think or question.

Return of the Archons.


2 posted on 06/17/2007 7:01:59 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

“I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time’

LOL


3 posted on 06/17/2007 7:02:11 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Not one evolutionist called in.

Guess the scientifically literate don’t listen to this show.


4 posted on 06/17/2007 7:03:38 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Whats so funny about THAT?
Didn’t you see Jurassic Park???


5 posted on 06/17/2007 7:05:34 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Heck, I’ve got a flock of pterodactyls up in my woods right now.

Wait, maybe they’re wild turkeys.


6 posted on 06/17/2007 7:06:48 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Oh Brother!Is This Guy Really Series? Alert


7 posted on 06/17/2007 7:07:59 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Saw one on television live from the US Senate floor this week. Was the dreaded Teddyasaurus. The thing was HUGE! Looked capable of devouring the entire nation. Usually kept in a sedate state with lots of booze.
8 posted on 06/17/2007 7:08:32 PM PDT by backtothestreets (My bologna has a first name, it's J-O-R-G-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

>>”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. <<

Logic would suggest that most of the listeners are evolution skeptics.


9 posted on 06/17/2007 7:08:54 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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

A bit like asking the posters at DU why G W Bush is a good President.

10 posted on 06/17/2007 7:11:40 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Joe has watched one too many episodes of the Flintstones.


11 posted on 06/17/2007 7:18:31 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

“At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today. “

Well some of the dinosaurs evolved into birds, so he’s unintentionally correct.


12 posted on 06/17/2007 7:20:31 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I think there are more 'scientists' that claim to be evolutionists, to protect their position(s) in whatever institution that pays them, than there are 'scientists' that claim to be creationists.

Should I be correct, the 'large number of scientists' that claim to be evolutionists becomes a more equal percentage of all scientists ... validating the polarization of thought process that is a 50/50 split.

There is no up unless there is a down .. no left without a right, no in unless there is an out to compare and contrast.

Evolutionists don't want a GOD ... creationists do.

It's really that simple.

They're both religions.

13 posted on 06/17/2007 7:21:05 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner

I especially liked the part where he wanted to know why he should believe mountains of evidence.


14 posted on 06/17/2007 7:21:15 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
A bit like asking the posters at DU why G W Bush is a good President.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, the President may now have more fans at DU than FR.

15 posted on 06/17/2007 7:22:53 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“There is no up unless there is a down “

There are two sides to every piece of flypaper, too. But the fly had better be very careful on which side he lands.


16 posted on 06/17/2007 7:23:19 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Do these nut cases even know what “ Theory’ means?
Hint:....best evidence. Repeat, best evidence.


17 posted on 06/17/2007 7:23:42 PM PDT by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Alley Oop
18 posted on 06/17/2007 7:25:13 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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.

It is wrong about the global flood.

Early geologists (creationists trying to prove the global flood) gave up about 1830. The evidence since then has accumulated -- there was no global flood about 4350 years ago.

19 posted on 06/17/2007 7:25:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Huh, my uncle who is a geologist (PhD) says there WAS a global flood.


20 posted on 06/17/2007 7:27:16 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

Perhaps Joe should go on a hunting trip to Africa and not write another article until he bags a pterodactyl.


21 posted on 06/17/2007 7:27:16 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy
Do these nut cases even know what “ Theory’ means?
Hint:....best evidence. Repeat, best evidence.

Definitions (from my FR home page):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


22 posted on 06/17/2007 7:29:51 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
The gene's the thing
That wherein even to sing, changes.

(Apologies to Shakespeare.)

23 posted on 06/17/2007 7:30:11 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

If there was a global flood, can you tell me where all the water went?


24 posted on 06/17/2007 7:30:15 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
There are two sides to every piece of flypaper, too. But the fly had better be very careful on which side he lands.

If you form a flypaper into a Mobius Strip, do you still have a sticky side and a non-sticky side?

25 posted on 06/17/2007 7:31:16 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; MurryMom

Leftists believe they evolved from slime. I cannot disagree...


26 posted on 06/17/2007 7:32:14 PM PDT by Libloather (That's just what I need - some two-bit, washed up, loser politician giving me weather forecasts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Huh, my uncle who is a geologist (PhD) says there WAS a global flood.

I am an archaeologist (Ph.D.) and the vast majority of my colleagues and I say there was no global flood about 4350 years ago. (And, we have scientific evidence.)

(I am assuming your post was a jest on those who do cite a famous uncle as proof of some silly idea. Good one!)

27 posted on 06/17/2007 7:32:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I don’t think there’s enough water on the planet to produce a global flood, but since your uncle is a geology PhD, surely you can find a cite from a geological source that there was a global flood four thousand years ago. Otherwise, I say... phooey.


28 posted on 06/17/2007 7:33:14 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

No


29 posted on 06/17/2007 7:33:42 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

LOL
I’ll have to see what Escher did with that.


30 posted on 06/17/2007 7:34:14 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Nope. He was an atheist until he started studying for his PhD and (gasp here) became a born again Christian.
Sorry he really does believe in creation and the flood. He uses geological research to preach.


31 posted on 06/17/2007 7:35:59 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Mr. Farah ought not be so impatient. When Darwin published “Origin Of The Species” he strongly implied that fossil evidence proving his Theory Of Evolution would be forthcoming. It is neither realistic nor fair to demand that scientists produce the aforementioned evidence in only 147 short years.
32 posted on 06/17/2007 7:36:19 PM PDT by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

You might enjoy this.


33 posted on 06/17/2007 7:36:30 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Things the Bible got Wrong

1. The ark that Noah was to built could not have physically held all the species of Animals on the Earth nor has there been time in the last 4,000 years for the number of species to evolve that could have fit on the ark as described in the Bible.

2. All Human Languages we have today formed when men built a tower to Heaven.

3. Humans in the past lived hundreds and some almost a thousand years. Human lifespans have never been as long as they are now and no remains have ever been found of a human who lived much longer than 120 years. Forensic science is at a very high state of being and can tell age due to several factors including dental wear and by studying cranial fissures.

Just off the top of my head three faults in Biblical teaching. The old testament especially Genesis is merely a collection of stories that instruct people in how to live morally. It was never meant to be taken literally.


34 posted on 06/17/2007 7:36:45 PM PDT by sentis1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Ok.


35 posted on 06/17/2007 7:36:50 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: svcw

It was a simple question. The fact is that the amount of water on the earth is the same today as it was 4000 years ago or 4,000,000 years ago. If the ice caps were to melt and all the ground water were to be brought to the surface the earth would still not be flooded completely.


36 posted on 06/17/2007 7:39:13 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sentis1

Sorry Number one should read

“1. The ark that Noah was to built could not have physically held all the species of Animals on the Earth nor has there been time in the last 4,000 years for the number of species to evolve that currently inhabit the Earth from those species that could have been held in the Ark as described in the Bible.”

Sorry mind was racing ahead of my typing skill on that one :)


37 posted on 06/17/2007 7:40:07 PM PDT by sentis1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

For that matter, water is continually arriving on earth in the from of cometary particles, so it is most likely the case that there has never been more water than there is today, which is still not enough to cover the globe.


38 posted on 06/17/2007 7:41:26 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Yes, it is sad that so many believe in the anti-God fable of evolution.


39 posted on 06/17/2007 7:42:02 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Ok. Seems like you have all the answers. Good for you.


40 posted on 06/17/2007 7:42:40 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Yes, it is sad that so many believe in the anti-God fable of evolution.

Can you see no scientific evidence that supports evolution?

41 posted on 06/17/2007 7:43:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Theo

What is really sad is that you believe that evolution is anti-God.


42 posted on 06/17/2007 7:43:46 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; aculeus; Coyoteman; Senator Bedfellow; Billthedrill; Larry Lucido; Dog Gone
Perhaps Joe should go on a hunting trip to Africa and not write another article until he bags a pterodactyl.

I wouldn’t begrudge Farah the bittersweet vindication of one bagging him.

43 posted on 06/17/2007 7:44:24 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

We were all created. Many devolve.


44 posted on 06/17/2007 7:44:45 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

No. None.


45 posted on 06/17/2007 7:46:43 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Was already on it, lol! Made my day!


46 posted on 06/17/2007 7:47:32 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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 sure explains why the first section of the last chapter of Darwin's Origins of the Species is titled Recapitulation of the Difficulties on the Theory of Natural Selection.

Time to let go of this canard. That dog won't hunt.

47 posted on 06/17/2007 7:47:40 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo
No. None.

You really see none? I mean, you don't think that various forms of geology, carbon dating, etc. at least hint at the possibility that the world is older than the new earth creationists preach?

48 posted on 06/17/2007 7:48:21 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

I believe the evidence, and because I’m a Christian, I believe Scripture, which in many many many ways contradicts the theory of evolution. Someone who believes in Jesus can’t believe in evolution — what He believed and spoke directly contradicts the theory.


49 posted on 06/17/2007 7:48:48 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Coming out of the woodwork ping.


50 posted on 06/17/2007 7:48:54 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-716 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson