All those protons and neutrons and what not need to be just right for life as we know it to exist. Besides maintaining that, as He is in control of everything, why would God need to change these things?
You don’t know what I know so lower your nose. There are smarter ones than you who know better than you.
If a theory does not allow for predictions then it is useless.
What predictions? Who needs predictions? The prediction is for creationism is, then, that the same species God created will still be around. What variations within and interbreeding between species will happen does not make or break creationism. Creationists have no problem with those things happening providing, regarding the values of devout, practicing Christian ones, the interbreeding happens only between animals. Of course, to macroevolutionists, what’s the difference between man and other creatures called animals? What’s the difference to them between mankind and aliens? The only predictions I think macro-evolution theorists have are that aliens will beam down and say “You are made from our seed”. They (the theorists) probably think we’re their descendants. What you make of seeing what appears to be transitional species is better left to theorists. You can take evidence from a crime and find someone guilty, but that won’t change anything if the judge is biased.
This is why “scientists” who seek to discredit evolution are rarely acknowledged in the scientific community. The “Intelligent design” theory does not contribute to the predictions scientists can make (or want to make?). Can they make predictions about weeping statues of Mary? Some will never believe it, despite scientific conclusions that there are no hoaxes. Does Darwin or other paleontologists’s data really prove anything or is it just data? Creationists predict the same species will exist naturally, anyway, and not become another species.
In addition, rejecting evolution rejects not only a large body of evidence. Evidence of what? A corrupt courthouse could find plenty of “evidence” to make one guilty, even fabricating some, and, because they are authorities in the field of law, who’ll implicate them? Some crusty old bones that look similar can mean many things. It takes an imagination to make the story.
but it also rejects the ability of the evolution model to account for whatever the basis for the rejection was. Creationists may say whatever they like, but scientists will not listen to them unless they have something both accurate and useful to say
(when scientific theorists have something to say both accurate and useful about macro-evolution, the non-Kipling-esque theorists, who can debunk macro-evolution even if Creationism could not be proven either, will listen to them play back their politically-correct conclusions or the conclusions that come from politically-correct subconscious preconceived notions of what “evidence” implies).
Since we have no empirical evidence of one creature becoming another, these “scientists” have nothing accurate. They just have probabilities amongst many possible ones that could come if they but look for them.
Ha!Ha! That’s funny! Back off, I’m a scientist!" Peter says to the layman who states the obvious fallacy of a sophmoric scientist.
I.e. Science and the freedom of speech are not the same thing.
Science is the grunt work, free speech is for theorists to debate macro-evolution vs. creationism–2 theories that haven’t been proven, though the latter is most likely as it is from infallible book which has not been officially made merely symbolic. Guess which I’ll choose. It’s not the one that is yet to be proven, yet has been used by ones already believing in certain races (the ones with heavier brows, short, wide noses and/or rounded chins–you know, the overpopulated ones we give chairs to on the UN while giving their infected people defective condoms poisoned vaccines) as inferior. The U.N. and others in influential positions, by the way, I think, are like the groups that got the rings and got their logic perverted by them while one controls them all (hmmm, who could it be…uhhh, let’s see…oh, I know…Satan’s Anti-christ!).
BTW Darwin tried to interbreed with a couple others in his scientific family to make intelligent kids, but just got Rain Mans–at best (I wonder if phrenology, which almost kept him off the Beagle, was really a pseudo-science). This was after years of royalty doing that had the same effect. Then we had Fr. Teilhard with his made-up primitive hybrid, which fooled the elite scientists who bought it hook, line, and sinker because they wanted to (they probably had slaves) to show how much they really believed in their theory over time. You have the propaganda religious-esque painting in a famous natural history museum. Now, there’s alien seed becoming us over time. You really think anything is different in the scientific community? Do you think they would be so unscientific if they really bought their own bull? Wounded animals often growl loudest and attack viciously when cornered. That happens in academia because they cannot logically debate their beloved theory. Creationism may never be proven, but theirs have been recognized as wanting by real scientists. Maybe intellectual humility and responsibility are in order for the posers in the once-great halls of academia.
