CS writes:
Since you cannot present a scientific paper that even references the law of biogenesis, I assume you have conceided the point that it is a scientific law and will no longer claim it as such. Thank you.
No thanks needed as I will continue to claim it is a scientific law of nature. Here are some citations that meet your criteria:
Science and Human Affairs
E. C. Stakman
Science 9 February 1951 113: 137-142 [DOI: 10.1126/science.113.2928.137]
Here is the direct quote from this article:
The record of the past hundred years is amazing when we consider the integration of knowledge regarding organic evolution, the laws of inheritance in plants and animals,
the application of the law of biogenesis to microorganisms, the cause and nature of fermentation, the causes and nature of diseases of animals and plants, the principles of soil fertility, the structure of matter as a basis for modern chemistry and physics.
Is one enough? No you need more? Here is another...
Order in the Physical World and its First Cause According to Modern Science. From the French. New York, James Pott & Co. 12. $1.; Natural Law in the Spiritual World. By HENRY DRUMMOND. New York, James Pott & Co. 12 75 cts
Science 25 March 1892 ns-19: 177 [DOI: 10.1126/science.ns-19.477.177] (in Articles)
Here is the reference:
For instance, he speaks of
the law of biogenesis, that life can only come from antecedent life,...
Here are some more from the Oxford Journal:
http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/searchresults?full...
Wikipedia references the LoB:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimre" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia references LoB:
USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings
The principle that a living organism can arise only from another living organism. It contrasts with notions such as the spontaneous generation of living organisms from non-living matter by natural processes.
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.
Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.
And certainly there are many scientific papers that reference the LoB from the creationist side. But there is no need to cite these as I've already destroyed your lame argument.
Oh did I forget! The original citation for this thread, a scientific address of the history of biogenesis and abiogenesis...
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/B-Ab.html
But none of this really matters, because science doesn't matter to you unless it meets your religious dogmas of abiogenesis.
CS writes:
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.
All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.
Au contraire! I am the only one who has presented scientific papers and citations for the Law of Biogenesis. To the contrary, you haven't presented one scientific publication that provides evidence that shows that abiogenesis is possible. That's called a lame argument. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
CS writes:
Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.
That's right, you have plausibility. That is a logical reasoning process of an infinite number of chemical reactions that can lead to life. What you don't have is the science which requires observability and repeatability to go along side of your logical reasoning process. Plausibility is philosophical faith just as Thomas Huxley accurately identified the philosophy of chemical abiogenesis.
Let keep plausibility out of the classrooms.
CS writes:
Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible.
Not so. You evidently don't understand the theory of relativity. Time is relative to both the speed of light and to gravity. There are gravity wells in the universe called black holes, and time "slows down" when gravity is increased. It also is slower the faster the speed of the clock. There are many time relativities within our universe. That's why it is called relativity.
We do not know this is impossible. If we don't know that abiogenesis is impossible, then how can you claim that life didn't pre exist the Big Bang. Abiogenesis is just as impossible as what you are declaring.
CS writes:
SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe.
Again, you cannot prove this.
CS writes:
Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.
Ok la la la la la. Rather than argue this ridiculous claim, I will just ask you the same thing that you claimed I couldn't do. Please present one (only one) paper from a legitimate scientific source that discusses the refutation of the law of biogenesis. Otherwise you are lame. Evolution is mutating your two legs off your logic.
CS writes:
I have read the thread. And no, you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the LoB is a scientific law.
This is either an outright lie or it is complete ignorance. From the beginning of this thread I have presented evidence while you have presented nothing but your claims.
cs writes:
Law's of nature don't mean anything.
They wouldn't to you. You obviously don't understand science at all to make such a statement.
Here is a citation from the Enclopedia Brittanica: Laws of Nature
Laws of nature are of two basic forms: (1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and (2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well. In either case, a law may be valid even though it obtains only under special circumstances or as a convenient approximation. Moreover, a law of nature has no logical necessity; rather, it rests directly or indirectly upon the evidence of experience.
Laws of universal form must be distinguished from generalizations, such as “All chairs in this office are gray,” which appear to be accidental. Generalizations, for example, cannot support counterfactual conditional statements such as “If this chair had been in my office, it would be gray” nor subjunctive conditionals such as “If this chair were put in my office, it would be gray.” On the other hand, the statement “All planetary objects move in nearly elliptical paths about their star” does provide this support. All scientific laws appear to give similar results. The class of universal statements that can be candidates for the status of laws, however, is determined at any time in history by the theories of science then current.
Several positive attributes are commonly required of a natural law. Statements about things or events limited to one location or one date cannot be lawlike. Also, most scientists hold that the predicate must apply to evidence not used in deriving the law: though the law is founded upon experience, it must predict or help one to understand matters not included among these experiences. Finally, it is normally expected that a law will be explainable by more embracing laws or by some theory. Thus, a regularity for which there are general theoretical grounds for expecting it will be more readily called a natural law than an empirical regularity that cannot be subsumed under more general laws or theories.
Universal laws are of several types. Many assert a dependence between varying quantities measuring certain properties, as in the law that the pressure of a gas under steady temperature is inversely proportional to its volume. Others state that events occur in an invariant order, as in “Vertebrates always occur in the fossil record after the rise of invertebrates.” Lastly, there are laws affirming that if an object is of a stated sort it will have certain observable properties. Part of the reason for the ambiguity of the term law of nature lies in the temptation to apply the term only to statements of one of these sorts of laws, as in the claim that science deals solely with cause and effect relationships, when in fact all three kinds are equally valid.
The LoB stand as a universal law of nature.
Let me give you some advise CS, get some legs underneath your arguments.
™ Version 4.2