Comment: I obviously implied no such thing

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Fascinating definition (see in situ)

GoodSamaritan's picture

I obviously implied no such thing

and I didn't mention the age of the earth. In fact, I never touched any cosmological model. I'd be happy to do that as well if anyone's interested.

Creation science is built on miraculous presuppositions just as evolution science is built on miraculous presuppositions. The science of both moves forward after accepting those presuppositions.

I've never read Hovind's materials. My knowledge on this issue is derived almost exclusively from the work of Ph.D. scientists, many of them world-class and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, who specialize in research of all fields of science relevant to the origins debate. You apparently derive too much of your info from the rumor mill.

To believe that everything came from nothing is a childish fantasy. To believe that the enormously complex information for instructing molecular machinery appears by chance is gibberish. To believe that the simplest self-replicating life-form of about 1,000 genes - made entirely of left-handed molecules - just magically coagulated from random atomic collisions and began reproducing is perverse comedy. It's make-believe.

Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, among many other scientists, has concluded that, "All calculations made of the probability [that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there could have been no possibility of the random appearance of life."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father