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.
Well, scientists say that we have science on our side. You, a non-scientist who is completely ignorant of science, say that we don't. Hmm ... who knows more about science, scientists or you?
In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. Both group must have faith. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.
What a curious notion. I notice that you have advanced no arguments in its favor.
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.
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."
How is that a prediction? It's merely an observation, everyone knows that.
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.
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.
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. My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers.
And this is not what the fossil record looks like, as you would know if you'd ever taken an interest in it. But now that you know that this key prediction made by creationism is false, I presume you will abandon creationism, yes?
He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish.
Yeah, sure, the sloths raced to the top of the hills while the sluggish velocirators were left behind. Presumably something similar accounts for the distribution of plants in the fossil record: the nimble oak trees outpacing the slower cordaitales. You were saying something about common sense?
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.
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.
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.
No. The application of five minutes' research or of five seconds' common sense would have told you that this isn't how fossils and rocks are dated. Again, you'd know this if you'd ever taken an interest in the subject.
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."
So if you were less wrong, you'd also be less furious. Wouldn't that be nice?
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.
That's why no-one does believe that.
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 ...
"Remarkable" is perhaps too tactful a way of putting it. "Egregious" might describe you more aptly. There is nothing
remarkable about learning to recite a few items of creationist nonsense. Any fool can do that. The only mildly interesting thing about this little exhibition is the way you have attributed your second-hand second-rate errors to a mythical being, and that is interesting only because it is suggestive of how in the old days men may have invented their gods.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
