And any information that is given by the privately ran Creation research programs is discounted by evolutionary people as useless as somewhere in the explanation is supernatural power. [emphasis added]
(The reason it is discounted is that it is not science, nor is it subject to the scientific method.)
Hey, that’s real cute. Now, please explain to me the difference between a “miracle,” and the notion that the first living cell fell together by chance in a primordial soup. And while you’re at it, please explain to me how the latter notion can be “falsified.”
In case you are too dense to understand what I’m getting at, let me spoon feed it to you. The notion that the first living cell fell together by chance is similar in principle to the notion that the entire text of the Gettysburg address once appeared on the sands of the Sahara desert due to random winds.
Can you prove that never happened? No you can’t. That makes it “unscientific.” By the same token, the notion that the first living cell fell together by random chance is “unscientific.” But for some reason many Ph.D.s in science insist on studying it. I wonder why. Is it possible, perhaps, that your definition of “scientific” is bullcrap?