Re: The Evolutionist Pseudoscientific Method

You don't need any. And if you think you do, then you don't understand evolutionary science at all.

Oh, sure, Corinthian. If a Creationist used this line of reasoning, you'd rightly reject it. Why do you hold yourself to a lower standard?

The fact that we can't currently create such a cell, does not mean that the whole idea of common origin is wrong. All the evidence indicates common origin. And like I wrote previously, not every question needs to be answered for something to be true.

And the fact that we can't see God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but you insist otherwise. Why do you accept a lower standard of proof for yourself?

Organic chemist are capable of creating self replicating molecules, as well as many organic molecules including amino acids from simple compound. But they've only had about 50 good years (Miller) of experimentaion, where as the planet had 1500 Million years running 24 hours a day. And where they are confined to a lab bench, life had a whole planet to arise.

Fair enough, but the point is you're still riding a belief that it's possible. Yeah, there are self replicating molecules. But that doesn't explain how the molecules were created in the first place, or why such creation doesn't happen now. "Things are different now." That's a straw man when I offer it, except that it's the most common retort I hear from this line of reasoning. Funny thing is, that's the same reason Creationists give that God doesn't make His presence known like he used to. Same excuses, different belief system.

And if we know that things were different, and how they were different, then shouldn't we be able to replicate those conditions? Except that we don't know with enough certainty... So, again, hang it on a belief and ASSUME that it must have been that way!

Belief, belief, belief.

We have already show with the Miller experiement that Organic molecules can arise from non organic compounds.

Yes, and you can read about it here and here. But your attempt to invoke the authority of Miller (that was an appeal to authority, by the way, in case you can't recongize it) is specious, for reasons you can again read about elsewhere (including at my links), if you actually care enough to examine ALL the data, rather than cherry picking the bits which favor your position -- you know, like you accuse the Creationists of doing?

Besides, an organic molecule is one with a carbon-hydrogen bond. Big deal. We can find plenty of them in stellar clouds in space, too, and in the occasional meteorite. This is a far cry from the complexity that is a cell.

As for the rest of your message... These are bits of evidence, I'll grant you, but they're still a long way from the spontaneous self-assembly of the first cell. In fact, they're little more than properties of the substances in question. They haven't suddenly become "alive" by virtue of these properties. I mean, oxygen is particularly electronegative, and life as we know it couldn't exist without it, but the characteristics of oxygen don't prove Evolution, either.

The simple test is: show how living cells can spontaneously self-assemble.

Until that act is accomplished, you're engaging in nothing but wishful thinking.