(Thanks for the suggestion but, I like to do things in my own style.
This isn't style. It's unintelligible rejection of style.
There's a lot of dishonesty among you guys.
Do you not yet realize that your understanding of the English language in not sufficiently acute for you to determine if the person you are conversing with is being disingenuous, or if you are failing to garner what is being said.
After all,the tell-tale sign of lying in English prose is a lack of spaces following punctuation.See.
And they fall in my trick.
No one has fallen for a trick you silly, little troll. You're just failing to understand what it is you're being told.
First those people said that spontaneous genaration should be distinguished from abiogenesis for the reason that abiogenesis implies replication and spontaneous genaration implies living things started to develop from non living things.
No one said this. This is a jumbled interpretation of whatever argument you imagine you're having. Stop, listen and think about what is actually being said, and have that argument instead.
Abiogenesis: One day there was no life. The next day there was. The unspecified thing that happened somewhere in between is abiogenesis.
Spontaneous generation: One day some wheat and rags in a box is left in the barn and mice poofed into existence over the course of the next few days.
The first must have happened, the second, ala L. Pasteur, doesn't.
See the logic?
Here's your logic.
Pasteur lived in a world where it was widely held that life sprang whole from disorder and uncleanliness. He thought otherwise and preformed experiments where he created situations where life should arise. In one case he left the situation open to the general environment. In a second case he sealed the situation against the general environment with a mesh fine enough to exclude the expected creature. In cases where extra-experimental critters could sneak in life appeared. In cases where extra-experimental critters were excluded by the mesh no life appeared. From this Pasteur concluded that vermin are not generated spontaneously from filth but attracted by it.
Nothing in Pasteur's experiments could make a determination about life's ultimate origin, and they were not designed to.
And by the way I dont believe that you guys are honest for the reason that you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with evolution.
Well then, you must be a liar a zillion times over because you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with Genesis. (Well, maybe that's a bit rough. You just plain ol' don't know what you're talking about. Not lying per se)
The New Scientist reported that"an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."Yet when one question evolutionary theory some of those scientist come to defend of the theory that they themselves have serious doubts.
As your understanding of the English language is so poor as evidenced by your repeated inability to grasp even the simplest of arguments it would behoove you to report exactly where you got your information. It would be very foolish for anyone to trust your interpretation of what was actually stated. For instance, by "The New Scientist" do you mean "NewScientist"? January 24-30, Pg. 34 maybe even?
For me these kind of attitude is unthinkable.There must be a psychological reason behind these things.
Was this another one of those things that you neglected to put a quote box around? Who said this about you?
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct double nneeggaattiivvee.
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
™ Version 4.2
