Transition from chemistry to biology

Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed? Can you further make a clear argument showing how those experiments disproved the possibility of abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth through chemical evolution?At the moment you seem to be taking a set of experiments with very specific goals and applying their results to something almost completely unrelated except by semantics.TTFN,WK

It seems to me from your reply that your answer to both my questions... ... was 'No!'. Do you actually know what the experiments were or do you only know the creationist talking point version of science?TTFN,WK

I don't think you should, I think you are doing that.You go from ... ... which is a reasonable description of the gist of the experiments, to claiming that this disproves an abiogenetic origin of life. If the abiogenetic theory in question was based around life arising in 'sterelized water protected from contamination' then you would have made a cogent point, as none of them are you are making an unsupportable conflation between the form of spontaneous generation Pasteur's experiments addressed and naturalistic theories of origins.The only basis for this conflation is the semantic overlap where the word abiogenesis has been used both to describe spontaneous generation and modern naturalistic theories of the origin of life. Without making an actual argument showing that these two precepts are identical in more than sharing a name or by showing how Pasteur's experiments have anything to do with modern scientific studies of abiogenesis (in terms of naturalistic theories of life's origins) you are simply making a bald assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence.TTFN,WKP.S. Please learn how to use the markups for quotes, it would make your posts much easier to follow, if you click on the 'peek' button just below this post on the right hand side you will see how.