Evolution has been Disproven

What`s with this fascination with using the word ‘random’, like atoms/molecules/amino acids are wandering around like lost sheep in a neutral world waiting to bump into something reactive and start things happening. Consider the human body today. Not only is it under assault from gravity, electro-magnetic fields, heat, pressure, radiation, weather effects (wind, rain, snow), and earth processes like `quakes, but internally from dehydration, lack (or surplus for some) of fuel, variation in air quality, radon gas, dust particulates, injury, viral and bacterial effects, encounters with reactive elements and compounds to name a range.
While we are still trying to assemble the natural factors at work in a primeval world, I sure they were influential in setting the first cells in motion, and preclude the vision of random chemicals blowing in the wind, unaffected by natural forces.
I think we have done a damn fine job with a posteriori reasoning with limited evidence and time-spans of millions of years to assemble a coherent theory (Evolution) to fit the facts. Creationists often lob on the scene with 'You can`t explain this' as if scientific theories are iron-clad and complete, instead of a work in progress compiled in a relatively short period of time compared with mainstream religion. Give science another hundred years and come back with questions about abiogenesis.

Well, I was going to say twenty years, but I thought I`d better err a tad.

Want to have a shot at Gen 1:21? 'And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life-----' How did He assemble the amino acids, etc.? What`s that, YOU DON`T KNOW?

My point in bringing in Genesis is that we are expected to be impressed by the title Creation Science. I repeat Creation + Science. Now, on the surface, I suppose one might expect this to consist of a genuine attempt to find out HOW God created the universe and life. You know, processes, laws governing those processes, all the data to reinforce Creation Science. But what we find? An endless attack on the opposite theories with weirdo speculations. Maybe CS should be called the Evolution Rebuttal Pseudo-Science. Seems closer to the mark.Edited for clarityThis message has been edited by Nighttrain, 02-10-2005 21:34 AM

Sure, Percy. Coming late to the fray, I thought I would draw parallels between a lack of complete knowledge about Evolution/Abiogenesis and a dearth of examination by Creatonists into their biological/chemical origins. IOW, pot calling the kettle black.