CTD writes:
Life on earth came into existence before the earth. Hmm. That's odd. If it was before the earth it couldn't be on the earth. *Ptui!
Well done! So, you agree now that you were wrong in your statement that "life only comes from life", because the first life cannot have come from previous life, can it? So in future, if you want to state something as an axiom, be more careful.
Pasteur's law, therefore, has nothing to do with the origins of life. As it says in your link:
quote:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". They showed that life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature. They did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.
Pasteur's work was to do with dispelling myths like maggots appearing in cheese being abiogenesis. It is about "present forms" of life not arising spontaneously, as it says above. It has nothing to do with the natural origins of all life.
The rest of your post is evasion, because, of course, you cannot list any natural phenomena that have non-natural explanations, and you cannot refute my claim that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the norm, as it's so obviously true.
This means that the hypothesis that some form of abiogenesis must have happened is automatically a strong one, as it is the only natural explanation for life on earth and that your line that:
....abiogenesis is sooooo obviously flawed they don't like having to defend it.
is untrue, because I've just defended it very well.
If you can show us evidence for some good magical or otherwise non-natural explanations for other natural phenomena, then the case for abiogenesis would be weakened. Of course, you can't, can you, so abiogenesis theory will remain as strong as ever.
Edited by bluegenes, : typos