Evolutionists Misrepresenting Biblical Creationists — Part 3
In the previous post on this subject, we saw how Darwin devotee David MacMillan was caught overtly misrepresenting creationist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. Instead of admitting and learning, MacMillan doubled down. Acting like atheists many of us have seen, he continued to devastate his credibility.
Although fish-to-philosopher evolution is not falsifiable in and of itself and has made few significant predictions, somehow MacMillan requires them from creationists. However, despite the dishonesty of atheists and evolutionists, creationists have indeed made predictions, some of which are discussed here, and many others here. MacMillan made false statements about Jeanson's predictions, used ad hominem attacks, indulged in moving the goalposts, and insisted that he was in the right while Jeanson was wrong. Even though MacMillan made demonstrably false statements, he turned the volume to eleven and rejected the evidence against him. Atheists and evolutionists frequently demand proof or evidence, then find excuses to reject it when it's given. So often, they are so intent on negating the truth of creationists that they actually help prove us right.
 |
| Credits: Original Image from Freeimages / Carol Lam, added clipart from Clker |
Although I wish he would stop using "YEC" (many of us prefer biblical creation), this is worth your time and consideration. To read the full article, click on "When Evolutionists Help Creationists Make Their Case, Part 3". Also, there are several videos available on YouTube that are about an hour long. For this subject, search for "Nathaniel Jeanson" (use the quote marks) and add the word predictions and you'll have quite a few to choose from.In 2017, I published a book, Replacing Darwin, that provided exactly what the mainstream scientific and legal community has been demanding for 40 years—testable, falsifiable predictions that future experiments could reveal to be true or false.. . .However, a small group of young-earth creation (YEC) critics has attempted to rebut the latest arguments from YEC advocates, including the arguments in the papers that my colleagues and I have published. Their criticisms are significant for two reasons. First, they represent a group of YEC critics that are purportedly aware of the YEC technical scientific literature, yet still reject YEC science. If true, this would represent an argument against my thesis that scientists reject YEC because they are prevented from being exposed to it. Second, they have taken specific aim at the fact that we have published testable, falsifiable predictions.