Hi Rocky.C and welcome to the fray
These articles are nothing but filth!!
Nice friendly, charitable opening.
It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists. It is something that they have become very good at. It is more or less the only weapon they have in their arsenal. They certainly don't have science on their side.
Curiously I find that people stereotype themselves by how they behave and say.
In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. ....
It always amuses me when religious people think the worst insult they can hurl at evolution is that they think it is religion.
For the record, though, I don't believe in evolution, I understand that it provides the best explanation for all the evidence, from the fossil record to the genetic record to the record of life around us.
... Both group must have faith. ...
Wrong: religion needs faith, belief needs faith; science needs - and has - evidence. There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution. If you are interested this can be pursued further.
... Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.
Isn't making false statements is not being honest? You make several false statements in your post, apparently due to under education of what evolution actually entails.
My great-great-great-great grandfather (his name was Common Sense) had faith, and he believed in creation. And based on the Holy Bible and that unwavering belief he made several startling predictions.
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.
He must be a "believer" in evolution then ...
Curiously that is what evolution predicts. That is what the fossil evidence shows. That is what the genetic evidence shows.
The
process of
evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. ... and it is a
FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution."
Furthermore, he predicted that cockroaches will produce only cockroaches, and that crocodiles will produce only crocodiles. He said that his descendants could verify his predictions by a process called science. In this case, he called it "operational/observable science."
Evolution predicts that offspring of any breeding population will always be offspring of that population and not offspring of some other population.
My 4greatgrandfather, Mr. Common Sense, accepted, as fact, that all animals were created six thousand years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all air breathing birds and land animals.
Curiously there is no evidence of a young earth, but there is mountains of evidence of an old earth. See
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some of the evidence.
Just accepting something as fact does not make it so. In science that is taken as an hypothesis to be tested. Science tests hypothesis to see if they actually reflect reality, rather than rely on blind faith ... or "common sense" (which is nothing more than opinion).
Mr. Common Sense was certain that the global flood, which covered the entire earth, would have quickly buried billions of organisms, and that this event would have left millions of fossils that would be discovered in time.
And yet there is no evidence of a single world wide event.
He predicted that the flood would have sorted and deposited the plants and animals by buoyancy , density, habitat, and mobility. He firmly believed that trilobites, crabs, some fish and bottom dwelling animals would be found in the lower layers of sediment.
Sadly, for you, this hypothesis is invalidated by the actual fossil evidence -- we do not see crabs with trilobites, nor do we see trilobites with crabs.
My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers. He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish. Not being covered quickly with sediment, he believed that they would leave few fossils. He (I believe more from prophecy that prediction) stated that more than 400 mammals would be found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Wow!!! Talking about insight.
But more than the failure of the fossil record to show his predicted animal patter, this hypothesis fails to explain the fossil evidence of plants (unless you think plants can run to high ground?
Based upon his understanding of the nature of humanity, as revealed within the pages of that wonderful Book, the Bible, he predicted that people would gradually come to accept a process called "evolution." And, that they would intentionally distort and misrepresent the fossils in order to achieve their goal. I don't know how he knew this, but that man had it going for him.
The curious thing is that (a) there are two records that are used by evolution to test the validity of the theory -- fossil evidence and genetic evidence -- and they agree ... and (b) this would require a world wide conspiracy of scientists to misrepresent facts -- a sure way to become discredited as a scientist (all science is peer reviewed and the goal is to show the previous person was wrong or mistaken).
I am sad to say that my 4gg was right when he predicted that dishonest men would subvert the fossils and the story that the fossils told.
Amusingly I am sure that if I as you for evidence of this, that I can predict several pratts that you will spout ...
Common Sense (and, I don't know how he could have known this--but he did) wrote with all capital letters in his journal that unscrupulous men would devise a system of dating the fossils by the rocks they were found in. And by dating the rocks by the fossils that were found in them. He called it "circular reasoning" at its most extreme. It was, according to him, absurd, and against true science.
This is a falsehood. The rock layers are dated by their relative position to other rock layers. Certain fossils are only found in certain layers of rocks, so when those fossils are found in different locations in rock layers a testable hypothesis is that they are of the same general age.
By conflating two different locations into one rock layer to date "the rocks by the fossils" you have created an appearance of circular reasoning when there is none.
Rocks layer (1) is dated by relative position to other rock layerss
Rock layer (1) has fossils (A) embedded in it
Rock layer (2) has fossils (A) embedded in it
conclusion: Rock layer (2) may be the same age as rock layer (1)
He was furious that this trickery (or, I can't quite make it out. it could be quackery) went against (pardon the pun) common sense; reliability; integrity; but most of all science, especially "operational science."
Amusingly the actual process as described above uses common sense, and it can be replicated time and again in the time-honored tradition of science (in this case geology).
Common Sense wrote that the only point that everyone will be able to agree on is that all these fossils died. We do not know whether any of them had reproduced or not. And, he was absolutely right in saying that if any of them did, there is no reason to believe they were capable of doing what animals today can't do; and that is to produce offsprings that are not of their own kind.
Actually we have some means to test fossils with DNA and determine their relationships by that evidence.
And again, evolution predicts that offspring of any breeding population will always be offspring of that population and not offspring of some other population. It would seem that you have some mistaken belief about what evolution says: this can be corrected by education, if you are willing.
Wow, this is some exciting stuff, but I have promised to take my lovely wife to dinner. I know everyone is as excited as I am to see how much insight and foresight my g44, Common Sense, had. He was a remarkable man, but I must put his journal up for tonight.
I will publish some more of his journal at a later date.
Perhaps if you selected what you consider is your *best* argument against evolution we can start with that to see who is more correct when it comes to metching the evidence of reality.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type
[qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type
[quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out
(help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see
Posting TipsFor a quick overview see
EvC Forum PrimerIf you have problems with replies see
Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
™ Version 4.2
