I understand exactly what science is.
No one here thinks so, for the obvious reason. You keep confusing science and religion.
That's exactly why I said what I said. "Evolutionary science" is the religion.
You did. For the reason I mentioned.
This is also why I keep asking people to define their world-view, particularly regarding origins. The predominant evolutionary world-view is that all life began from non-life
That's what God says, unless you want to argue that air, water, and dirt are alive. Is that the problem?
Barbarian explains why science is continuously being updated:
For example, Newton's theory of gravitation continues to be valid and is used in navigating spacecraft. But it's also been modified by relativity.
And that is the difference between true science that can be tested via the scientific method of repeated experimentation
Yes. For example, biologist Barry Hall did an experiment, showing that bacteria evolved a new enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionary scientists frequently do experiments like this to test their hypotheses.
and "origins science" which is actually making claims about singular and unrepeatable events in the distant past.
You've confused religion and science again. Creationists make claims about singular and unrepeatable events in the distant past. Scientists like Hall conduct experiments and observations to test their ideas. This is one of the key differences between science and creationism.
Barbarian observes:
Although some creationists have begun to worship creationism, scientists do not worship science.
Nope. You, for example, have made an idol of creationism, and have worshiped it to the point that you have separated yourself from other Christians. Creationism has become more important to you than Christians faith.
The evolutionary world-view is dominated by atheistic scientists that do indeed worship science as they believe that the material world is all that exists.
Nope. Most of us are theists of some kind. And as you were told earlier, science does not and cannot say that the material world is all that exists.
Barbarian chuckles:
Now, if you're out of excuses, how about coming up with two major groups lacking a transitional?
I don't play your game because I know...
...no one has been able to find such a case. It's a devastating failure for creationism, giving lie to the claim that there are no transitional forms. Even worse, there are transitional forms only where evolutionary theory says they should be. And now, with you claim of "missing links" in tatters, you're trying to find a way out.
As you also learned, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise openly acknowledges the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record but expresses confidence that eventually, a superior creationist explanation will be found for them. His commendable honesty should be emulated by you, not disparaged.
