Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Enoch2021]

See dictionary.com.

Well go ahead and roll with "Dictionary.com". If you run into me down the road and wheel those out as "Science" I'm gonna "Go Gunz"! :2gun:

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 300 by Enoch2021]

Could you explain why evolution isn't science, with a source that backs you up?
I'm not asking you to keep asking for controlled variables and live experiments - I'm asking for the source that says you need them.

So far, every source that I've seen you give has made room for evolution as a science. In fact, at least three of your quotes are from sources that explicitly call evolution a science. (see previous posts)

Or you could, you know, just explain why you think not having a controlled variable would somehow make testing impossible - and why you think modern experiments on evolution (various) and evolution in breeding (e.g. pets and plants), since antiquity and beyond, aren't valid.

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 300 by Enoch2021]

Could you explain why evolution isn't science, with a source that backs you up?
I'm not asking you to keep asking for controlled variables and live experiments - I'm asking for the source that says you need them.

So far, every source that I've seen you give has made room for evolution as a science. In fact, at least three of your quotes are from sources that explicitly call evolution a science. (see previous posts)

Or you could, you know, just explain why you think not having a controlled variable would somehow make testing impossible - and why you think modern experiments on evolution (various) and evolution in breeding (e.g. pets and plants), since antiquity and beyond, aren't valid.

You know when you're sitting in class for a week daydreaming---not paying any attention to the blocks of instruction, and the Professor suddenly exclaims, "TEST tomorrow, any questions?". "Hopefully" you realize you're trapped in a dilemma, sort of a "Catch 22". You absolutely need to ask questions BUT.... if you ask any questions "You're Exposed", the Professor along with everybody and their sister knows EXACTLY where you are at. This is what's happening now...to you.

Could you explain why evolution isn't science, with a source that backs you up? I'm not asking you to keep asking for controlled variables and live experiments - I'm asking for the source that says you need them.

Here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

Sources:

"The SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant A THEORY is, ITS PREDICTIONS MUST AGREE WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical PREDICTIONS is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Any Questions?

This says it all:

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

We have ourselves a "Philosopher"!!

Is "Philosophy" Science ? Does it follow the Scientific Method?

Or you could, you know, just explain why you think not having a controlled variable would somehow make testing impossible.

Well since Scientific Hypotheses ARE THIS:

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

If you don't have: (Dependent/Independent/Control Variables) then it's not a Scientific Hypothesis.

It's like, if you have A Football Field and a Football Field has Yard Lines, Goal Posts, and End Zones.....if you come across a Field WITHOUT these characteristics but has 10 foot high Corn, then it's not a Football Field, it's a Corn Field.

modern experiments on evolution

We've identified the problem, you don't know what evolution is:

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Ergo....

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin

2. How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?


Just because somebody puts the word "Historical" before "Science" doesn't make it "Science". It makes it an Equivocation (Fallacy) especially if the Antecedent is the Antithesis of "It".
Examples: Cold Heat, Lead Clouds, "Historical" Present, Jumping Beans, Goat Whales, Badminton Football, Time Dilation, Chartreuse Black, Married Bachelor.


regards

[KenRU]

See dictionary.com.

Well go ahead and roll with "Dictionary.com". If you run into me down the road and wheel those out as "Science" I'm gonna "Go Gunz"! :2gun:

Lol, message rec'd, Enoch. But keep in mind, I'm standing on pretty solid ground here. After all: a vast majority of scientists disagree with you, virtually all dictionaries say you are wrong, common vernacular agrees with me, and nearly all universities and colleges across the US consider them science.

Have at it. : )

[Enoch2021]

See dictionary.com.

Well go ahead and roll with "Dictionary.com". If you run into me down the road and wheel those out as "Science" I'm gonna "Go Gunz"! :2gun:

Lol, message rec'd, Enoch. But keep in mind, I'm standing on pretty solid ground here. After all: a vast majority of scientists disagree with you, virtually all dictionaries say you are wrong, common vernacular agrees with me, and nearly all universities and colleges across the US consider them science.

Have at it. : )

I've been getting the same retort on a number of threads: "Vast Majority", ect:

1. Consensus doesn't = TRUTH!

2. The Vast Majority of Scientists aren't "actual" Scientists.

3. Agreement/Disagreement is for Philosophers or: Who's Favorite Color/Ice Cream/Band et al is the best....it's Subjective.
"Science" is OBJECTIVE it's goal is to to OBSERVE Phenomenon in the Natural World then Validate and Explain CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

"Vast Majority", "Agreement", "Votes" are tenets of POLITICAL"science" discussions and forums.

That's why there's frustration/off topic rants/ Ideologue Pronouncements, nonsensical Quibbling (Fallacies) ect.... most on these "science" forums are in the wrong "Sub-forum".
Ask yourselves if: "Vast Majorities", Agreements/Disagreements and such are of some importance (if not the main importance).....if the answer is YES, petition Osteng to open a Political Science thread. Voila! Then the rest of us can get down to business!!

regards

[KenRU]

See dictionary.com.

Well go ahead and roll with "Dictionary.com". If you run into me down the road and wheel those out as "Science" I'm gonna "Go Gunz"! :2gun:

Lol, message rec'd, Enoch. But keep in mind, I'm standing on pretty solid ground here. After all: a vast majority of scientists disagree with you, virtually all dictionaries say you are wrong, common vernacular agrees with me, and nearly all universities and colleges across the US consider them science.

Have at it. : )

I've been getting the same retort on a number of threads: "Vast Majority", ect:

1. Consensus doesn't = TRUTH!

2. The Vast Majority of Scientists aren't "actual" Scientists.

3. Agreement/Disagreement is for Philosophers or: Who's Favorite Color/Ice Cream/Band et al is the best....it's Subjective.
"Science" is OBJECTIVE it's goal is to to OBSERVE Phenomenon in the Natural World then Validate and Explain CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

"Vast Majority", "Agreement", "Votes" are tenets of POLITICAL"science" discussions and forums.

That's why there's frustration/off topic rants/ Ideologue Pronouncements, nonsensical Quibbling (Fallacies) ect.... most on these "science" forums are in the wrong "Sub-forum".
Ask yourselves if: "Vast Majorities", Agreements/Disagreements and such are of some importance (if not the main importance).....if the answer is YES, petition Osteng to open a Political Science thread. Voila! Then the rest of us can get down to business!!

regards

Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

So, can that one Christian scientist tell you: Consensus (in the YEC Camp) does not equal truth?

Best of luck with these hurdles.

[Enoch2021]

See dictionary.com.

Well go ahead and roll with "Dictionary.com". If you run into me down the road and wheel those out as "Science" I'm gonna "Go Gunz"! :2gun:

Lol, message rec'd, Enoch. But keep in mind, I'm standing on pretty solid ground here. After all: a vast majority of scientists disagree with you, virtually all dictionaries say you are wrong, common vernacular agrees with me, and nearly all universities and colleges across the US consider them science.

Have at it. : )

I've been getting the same retort on a number of threads: "Vast Majority", ect:

1. Consensus doesn't = TRUTH!

2. The Vast Majority of Scientists aren't "actual" Scientists.

3. Agreement/Disagreement is for Philosophers or: Who's Favorite Color/Ice Cream/Band et al is the best....it's Subjective.
"Science" is OBJECTIVE it's goal is to to OBSERVE Phenomenon in the Natural World then Validate and Explain CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

"Vast Majority", "Agreement", "Votes" are tenets of POLITICAL"science" discussions and forums.

That's why there's frustration/off topic rants/ Ideologue Pronouncements, nonsensical Quibbling (Fallacies) ect.... most on these "science" forums are in the wrong "Sub-forum".
Ask yourselves if: "Vast Majorities", Agreements/Disagreements and such are of some importance (if not the main importance).....if the answer is YES, petition Osteng to open a Political Science thread. Voila! Then the rest of us can get down to business!!

regards

Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

So, can that one Christian scientist tell you: Consensus (in the YEC Camp) does not equal truth?

Best of luck with these hurdles.

Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

As stated, These belong on "Political" science threads.

I'm here in Missouri; so...they have to "SHOW ME".

btw this....

I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

Is a No True Scotsman (Fallacy)

regards

[KenRU]

Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

As stated, These belong on "Political" science threads.

Once again, trying to redefine words and meanings. Doesn’t this get old for you?

Definition of Political Science: Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior.

I'll let the readers determine for themselves whether they think your argument holds water.

I'm here in Missouri; so...they have to "SHOW ME".

You have been showed, you just argue regardless. Once you invalidate the dictionary as a source of meaning, everything said becomes debatable and argumentative, as you have just showed with Political Science. Your query of “show me� is disingenuous at best.

btw this....

I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

Is a No True Scotsman (Fallacy)

regards

You mean like when you say geologists and archaeologists aren’t “real� scientists?

Btw, you ignored the point. The point wasn’t numbers proving who is right or finding someone in the YEC camp to agree. The point was that you were setting yourself up for the same invalidation that you are trying to use to invalidate geology and archaeology.

all the best

[Enoch2021]

Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

As stated, These belong on "Political" science threads.

Once again, trying to redefine words and meanings. Doesn’t this get old for you?

Definition of Political Science: Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior.

I'll let the readers determine for themselves whether they think your argument holds water.

I'm here in Missouri; so...they have to "SHOW ME".

You have been showed, you just argue regardless. Once you invalidate the dictionary as a source of meaning, everything said becomes debatable and argumentative, as you have just showed with Political Science. Your query of “show me� is disingenuous at best.

btw this....

I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.

Is a No True Scotsman (Fallacy)

regards

You mean like when you say geologists and archaeologists aren’t “real� scientists?

Btw, you ignored the point. The point wasn’t numbers proving who is right or finding someone in the YEC camp to agree. The point was that you were setting yourself up for the same invalidation that you are trying to use to invalidate geology and archaeology.

all the best

Once again, trying to redefine words and meanings.

I didn't "define" Agree/Disagree...aren't they self evident?

Definition of Political Science: Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior.

I didn't define it just emphasized the Tenets/Characteristics of "it". Which are: "Majority", "Votes", "Consensus"---Agreements/Disagreements.

Like Science--- Definition: Science--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Characteristics: Hypotheses, Theories, Laws, Empirical et al.

Follow?

You have been showed, you just argue regardless.

A Definition isn't an Illustration (Showing). Just like a Description isn't an Explanation.

You mean like when you say geologists and archaeologists aren’t “real� scientists?

That's because they're NOT. Allow me to "Illustrate"....

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

That's a Description. Here's a Practical Application "Illustration" (abbreviated):

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

Observe a Phenomenon: Some Tomatoes are Bigger than others.

Hypothesis: Tomatoes will grow bigger if exposed to more Sunlight.

Independent Variable: Sunlight.
Dependent Variable: Tomato Growth.

This is a VALID Hypothesis...it's TESTABLE, Observable, Repeatable, Falsifiable: (Empirical....The Scientific Method---what makes science, "Science")

But Archaeology...they Observe "Nouns" and Geology, for the most part, can't TEST Hypotheses; Ergo, can't form VALID Hypotheses....hence, pretenders.
Caveat: Each postulate will be evaluated on the basis inherent to "it" specifically.

So unless you subtract out Hypotheses and Theories from "Science" (good luck with that) then these are Glorified Question Beggars, @ Best!


regards

[Jashwell]

Could you explain why evolution isn't science, with a source that backs you up? I'm not asking you to keep asking for controlled variables and live experiments - I'm asking for the source that says you need them.

Here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

I do believe we've already addressed this one, but I'll go on:

Sources:

"The SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant A THEORY is, ITS PREDICTIONS MUST AGREE WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical PREDICTIONS is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

I notice you didn't emphasise "In physics, as in every experimental science".

It is, of course, a source for teachers to use when teaching physics labs. In fact, Rochester University (the source of that [strike]article[/strike] teaching handout) offers a degree incorporating evolutionary biology - in the biological sciences.

Furthermore:

A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) exposed to the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators, yet the process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.

(as previously mentioned)

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Any Questions?

"Darwin introduced historicity into science."
"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"
"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes, Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science, while discussing that the same techniques used in Chemistry and Physics aren't necessarily applicable to historical evolution*, why are you still bring it up? Why did you bring it up in the first place, when it outright contradicts your position in the first sentence? How could it possibly be misconstrued as supporting the view that evolution isn't science?

(* coincidental link to previous quote - the previous quote describes the importance of experimentation in 'experimental sciences', not in all of science - though somewhat redundant given the context of the previous quote)

Are you seriously suggesting "Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science" supports you in any way?

This says it all:

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

We have ourselves a "Philosopher"!!

Is "Philosophy" Science ? Does it follow the Scientific Method?

It can be, by some accounts all of science would be a subset of philosophy (as would maths and logic). Then you have the people who call many things "a philosophy". Depends who you ask, but the person in question clearly thinks evolution is a science. That particular quote doesn't seem to me to be particularly literal regardless. Science is certainly an epistemology, and epistemology is quite a big deal in philosophy.

Or you could, you know, just explain why you think not having a controlled variable would somehow make testing impossible.

Well since Scientific Hypotheses ARE THIS:

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

If you don't have: (Dependent/Independent/Control Variables) then it's not a Scientific Hypothesis.

What makes you think that? The sources you've given either think evolution has those or doesn't need those. The latter is explicitly supported by the previous quote, if anything you could interpret the latter to be a response to the former with the context of this discussion (a nice coincidence).

modern experiments on evolution

We've identified the problem, you don't know what evolution is:

Modern experiments on evolution:
Evolution of drug resistance
Evolution in controlled experiments (in microbiology)
Evolution by artificial selection (various)

Evolution is a process of the development of life through selection pressures, inheritance and random change.

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

You know, having published books that discuss evolution doesn't make you its father.

Regardless, first of all the author distinguishes between a "general" and a "specific" theory of evolution (already indicating he's not addressing it all), and second, the actual theory of evolution doesn't require anything of the sort. Evolution could occur in an infinite world on which life never begun (but just always existed), it could occur in life created by natural or supernatural means, and it could occur if there were multiple sources of life.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Outside of biology, we aren't discussing the theory of biology, it'd be equivocation to use the two alternately. "Man is a product of the evolution of life" is the closest that gets to discussing biological evolution.

Ergo....

Ergo nothing, neither quote remotely supports what you've said, both make more reference to abiogenesis (the origin of life) than evolutionary biology.

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

This doesn't stop evolution being a science; this doesn't stop evolution occurring; if you want to discuss hypotheses relating to early life, we can do that when we aren't discussing the truth of or scientific nature of (the study of) evolution - which isn't relevant. Even if life couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur.

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin

Fortunately I don't need to do anything of the sort. This is an argument from ignorance, this is a false dichotomy (implied by 'to refute'), this is false equivocation (as to what evolution is).

2. How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

Just because somebody puts the word "Historical" before "Science" doesn't make it "Science". It makes it an Equivocation (Fallacy) especially if the Antecedent is the Antithesis of "It".

1) That's not an equivocation fallacy, that's an oxymoron - and there's no reason to think historical science is oxymoronic (see 2)
2) Assuming historicity is antithetical to science is begging the question
3) Please stop giving quotes that oppose your own position, and then suggesting they're evidence for your position. Especially when you're saying "[Evolution is science]" supports the idea that evolution isn't science.