Hold on...

[SaturnV]

Note: I believe in God. I already have faith, I don't need creationist pseudoscience to support my belief. Creationist pseudoscience is a poor substitute for real science, and an even poorer substitute for faith.

And how do you really feel about Darwinian pseudoscience, i.e., his

[The Lorax]

Horizoneast, what I am going to tell you will probably resonate with some of the other users on this forum:

I don't want to talk about what you call "Darwinism." I'm not interested in philosophical concepts; I'm interested in science. You'd like to talk about your cartoon of science. No thank you.

However, if you want to talk about the state of real science, I would gladly oblige.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[SaturnV]

Actually, 2% of the final composition was amino acids, among other organic compounds.

As I said, recent experiments that take into account the composition of Early Earth's atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids, nucleotides, and lipids.

Edited March 1, 2007 by SaturnV

[The Lorax]

But Angry – you can’t separate Darwinism from its many metaphysical concepts – it is not possible.

Says...you?

Does this mean you can’t defend Darwinism as science?

What you call "Darwinism" is clearly a fantasy of your own making; why the heck would I want to defend it?

Btw what is your definition of “real science”? Does it include chemical evolution and molecule-to-man evolution?

Real science is what scientists actually practice. Try some lab work. Read some peer-reviewed articles, maybe one in a magazine like Nature. This is basic stuff, but if you want me to tutor you in it you'll have to send me a check, because I'm not doing it for free.

[SaturnV]

Actually, 2% of the final composition was amino acids, among other organic compounds.

As I said, recent experiments that take into account the composition of Early Earth's atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids, nucleotides, and lipids.

Are you suggesting that abiogenesis has been proven? Is science any closer to manufacturing life today as it was in the 1950s when Miller started his experiment? Why did Dose write,

[The Lorax]

Surely you don’t deny that Darwinism exists? Am I making it up? Why don't you honor me with your definition of Darwinism?

I imagine you are referring to a philosophy related to natural selection. I don't use the word because I don't talk about philosophy. No, I'm interested in the life sciences, particular biology, where the Theory of Evolution is used a unifying scientific theory. Since you are the only one here who actually uses the word "Darwinism", why don't you define it? Then I can tell you whether or not Darwinism exists, based on your definition.

Why would I want to hire you to tutor me – you not a scientist – right?

Because you are asking me to spoonfeed you answers to basic questions. I'm spending my free time providing you a personal service, shouldn't I be paid? Really though, the answers are out there and you could find them easily if you made the time and effort.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[GeneV]

I have already given you my definition

[TomPJr]

davem

Hovind knows about science like he knows about tax laws. He is a self-professed 'teacher of science' in a school he set up himself. His degree was bought and paid for, not earned. He is a well-known liar.

If you get your knowledge from him, you're not going to learn much, except how to earn lots of money fraudulently.

Lol

[TomPJr]

I read through some of these replies and see some peoblems....I won't mention names.

First of all....Science and creation go hand in hand. It is Macro-Evolution which is contrary to creation.

Science (true science) is the study of Gods creation.

I am not a scientist but I did get an education in it (a bachelors in biology) and I am well aware it doesn't exactly jive with literal creation. It doesn't jive at all, really.

True Science (not Macro-Evolution) goes hand in hand with Creation and demonstrates Gods awsome Creation.

Are you are scientist, Tom? If not, how can you possibly tell us what "true science" is?

Note: I believe in God. I already have faith, I don't need creationist pseudoscience to support my belief. Creationist pseudoscience is a poor substitute for real science, and an even poorer substitute for faith.

I think you are letting your anger get in the way of reason.

any idiot can look up the term science and have an adequate definition

sci

[SaturnV]

SV

I'll never say anything has been proven, but abiogenesis is certainly plausible. Most importantly, it actually has experimental evidence, something which Creationism lacks outright.

Then you agree with my earlier statement that the Miller experiment did not do what it set out to do