OUG
More re: "I know ambiogenisis is denied to be AN evolution BUT
how did this first cell mutate into being the first cell?"

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/lifeblob.html

nice try horus

any proof they had alcohol 'in the abgensis' times?
[pre the organic stuff
to ferment the sugars?

quote from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D61E3BF933A05753C1A966958260

..>>The two ingredients used in the experiment were an ester (a substance made from an alcohol and an organic acid) and amino adenosine.

Once a few molecules of AATE have been made from these ingredients, the AATE molecules can serve as templates for making replicas of themselves...<<

later it suggests abiogenesis couildnt have worked that way

..>>In the study of this prebiotic chemistry, Dr. Rebek said, a central issue "has been the question of what kind of molecule started things off."

He said scientists "have pretty much settled on nucleic acids, particularly RNA, because it's easy to visualize how RNA can act as a template for its own formation, just as it does in living systems even today."

RNA, or ribonucleic acid, carries the chemical instructions needed by living cells to synthesize the proteins on which all organisms are based...>>

thus any REAL proof would need to use those ingrediants

not booze as a catalist
creating a chemical reaction
[not biological life]

that comes along after abgenesis
also it lacks a living membrane

[making a chemical condom like skin
isnt making a biological [living]cell membrane]

ludwic[my belief isnt relitive

[im asking evolution[ists] to please explain THEIR theory]
not wanting to verify my own beliefs of god creating it all,
i accept that as a base fact

#[that god himself alone can 'prove' as he was the only one there]

but science is getting an idea
on how he MIGHT have done it
but is NO WHERE NEAR doing it
nor proving he did it this way or that

[i learned the numbers dont stack up for evolution]

then i studied god
[but i been studying evolution process for 30 years
[god about 10]

now can an expert please explain
why evolution is promoted as a science[when clearly it is not]

From another similar thread -
Splitting hairs about the minutae of evolution doesn't prove something else is correct because there is no other scientific theory to consider at this time.

Putting it all down to some cloud-hopping deity isn't a reasonable alternative.

The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).

Reproduce that in a laboratory and you'll convince me!

It is not possible to convince such as one under God.
But evolution can be seen in the great number of Gods and cultures this planet has.
Each evolved differently just as every thing on the planet did because of different environments.
Each God we are told created the earth, and is the True God.
Some believe it is their whole life's work to impose their God on believers in other Gods.
Some want to use God as a reason to kill.
One Under God can not be convinced, so many who believe can not be convinced, by truth or evidence.
Surely more words are spoken about religion here than any other subject.
It may well be because the real world will no longer listen.

One under god.

Your call for definitive proof of what happenned billions of years ago for which there cannot be any fosil remains is ludicrous.

The technology to reproduce it does not exist yet, but with the continual advance of technology it is more the question of when rather than if.

As the vast 3 billion year patchwork is being put together all the pieces that are being found fit into the theory of evolution, the fact that there are pieces missing means that they have yet to be found, and not that the entire patchwork is wrong.

However, what has been found clearly does not fit into the creationist theories at all. Thus the theory of creation has been disproved.

OUG, ignorance is being unaware of the facts, being aware and not able to change your opinion to suit the facts is stupidity.

While I would like to explain as to a 5 yr old, most 5yr olds have the ability to reason which you lack.

3 further attemts to NOT explain

a quote from the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science, pseudoscience and nonscience

Main articles: Cargo cult science, Fringe science, Junk science, Pseudoscience, and Scientific misconduct

Any established body of knowledge
which masquerades as science
in an attempt to claim a legitimacy
which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science;

it is often known as fringe- or alternative science.

The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific theories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves,
are believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position.

There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the use of the term

and such is the case

#cleaRLY ATHIESTS GAIN COMFORT AND AID
FROM THINKING A BELIEF TO BE BASED ON SCIENCE
WHEN CLEARLY [BY ITS OWN MEASURE IT IS A FRAUD]

not one proof is being offered
that speaks for itself

[can you even see the company you keep?
who you deney to give this comfort?

who more ignorant
one who cant explain
or one who refuses to explain