They do not care about the future of Giraffes and Polar bears?
Not reflected in your posts. Are you asserting creationists never made a prediction? All you have to do is google ''predictions by creationists'' to address that. How hard can it be? Your assertions are not demonstrated by your posts since you continually post inaccurate information about Creationists. Anybody can fact check your assertions against the actual writings by using Google. The articles are there and calls into question your credibility and puts the damper on your claims you do your homework when you clearly do not. You can't get past your own prejudices to accurately reflect the information. No professionalism there. There is a deep divide here, and you would not be a reliable source since Creationists is the equivalent of the N word for blacks in your camp and don't deny it. You despise them in spite of their education credentials. Here is an example.
Does the Creation Model Make Predictions? Absolutely! | Answers in Genesis
''Second, the creation model, unlike evolutionary models, is very tightly constrained by Scripture that must be accounted for without wiggle room. Ken Ham outlined some of these in his opening statement. Some constraints include:
- The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them took place in 6 normal, 24 hour days roughly 6,000 years ago based on the genealogies in Scripture.
- All humans are descended from 2 individuals . . . Adam and Eve.
- There was a worldwide, globe covering flood at the time of Noah.
- God made the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 after there were already plants on the earth.
These constraints on the creation model are highly detailed, leave no room for change and are impossible to get around. We have a defined
timeline for which all of the different kinds of animals were made. Evolutionists are not so constrained. To demonstrate, a fun exercise is to do a google search for the term “fossil” with “older than previous.” Such a search turns up millions of websites (many of these are duplicates) describing numerous fossils that are found “millions of years” earlier “than previously thought.”
So when evolutionists find a fossil in strata that they didn’t expect, they can just revise the date range.''
You wrote the article makes no predictions, and I proved you wrong. One should reasonably be able to produce five predictions based on the available data in the article. If you can't then that shows incompetence. If you can't connect the dots??? It could be a test question. Produce five predictions based on this data.
How bout this; Giraffes and Polar Bears will not change throughout the future. The only possible change is extinction. Polar bears will not develop sonar via natural means nor will they evolve into a different species. There is a prediction based on current data from the present.
This is coming from a guy whose first sentence is this.
'''Your post does not address a fundamental reality.'''
None. Doubtful that has changed discussing biology with you. John Martin took all that time and energy to type out a thoughtful post, and all he gets from you is hand-waving dismissals. I don't have to think about it because of some trumped up rule according to you. So don't talk to me about polite. Martin did not do anything different then Darwin did with Origins. They both made cases and came to different conclusions. The difference being nobody dismissed Darwin's work with a hand-wave dismissal based on not making predictions. Predictions are not the problem in the first place. It is the excuse which says nothing about whether the position is reasonable or not. You simply do not want to discuss it. Your open mind slams shut.
So they start with their conclusion. Provide a couple of
exoteric examples. Then the alternative being a statement can easily be false even if the belief in the statement was reached by true reasoning. Faulty premises lead to inaccurate conclusions. It seems they would follow the evidence and not depend on blunders or the stopped clock analogy being right at least two times a day. Assumptions about historical reality are either advanced or rejected based on an investigation. Evolution makes a host of really far out claims relative to historical reality. We have fish in our lineage for one. Nature caused sonar in whales from sources which did not have sonar is another. I would like to see the empirical corroborating data from nonbiological sources for assuming nature can do such things absent the intervention of an intelligent source. Because you know what, there are none.