Transition from chemistry to biology

This leads me to believe that you don't correctly understand what Pasteurs experiments are. Can you please tell me in your own words what you think Pasteur did?Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy. Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true. Quotes mean nothing. Evidence means everything. Pasteur produced no mechanism that prevents nonliving matter from forming life. None of his observations did anything of the sort.Second, the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is significant. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter may, through natural chemical reactions, spontaneously result in life. Spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently extant life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter - that is, maggots form from dead meat, etc. And you'd be wrong. Fortunately, you are not responsible for defining terms. As I said, spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently existing life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter, such as maggots spontaneously forming from dead meat instead of hatching from eggs laid by a parent fly.Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter can, through natural chemical reactions, arrange itself into life. Not fully-formed extant life forms, but primitive, barely-meets-the-definition life.If you can't tell the difference between those two, I can't help you. Oddly enough, greater than 99% of all biologists hold the Theory of Evolution to be an incredibly accurate model of the observed mechanism of change over generations in populations of living things, as well as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life observed on Earth.That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.Now, if you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a gigantic fraud, please feel free to illuminate us. If you have no such evidence, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are simply yet another Creationist arguing from a position of complete ignorance in support of dogmatic belief.

And all who define "spontaneous generation" in the same way Pasteur did are justified in agreeing with him. The generation of paramecium will not be a result of stagnant, straw soup, or any such simplistic, mess→mouse belief of the day. If you find a detractor, by all means, have an argument with him. However, no one here is disagreeing with Pasture.What is currently meant by "abiogenesis" is that life derived from non-life. It is generally believed that self-driven cycles of chemical reactions very gradually became more efficient, complex and self-contained through imperfect replication and the more efficient reactions getting the lion's share of the limited resources. This is what you need to supply an argument against.Supplying an argument against this, however, isn't going to be easy. Primarily due to the hypothesis being so vague. While there are a lot of bits and pieces that would fit into the hypothesis, it is not known if any of them did. You can discover as a fact that X could not possibly have occurred, but all that will do is eliminate X as one of the possible steps used by Mother Nature to get from non-life to life.But if it eases your mind any, no one is saying they know how it did happened. All that it is possible to say so far is that there are no known chemical reactions involved in life that violate what is known about chemistry or physics. This gives comfort to naturalist-with-pants who some day hope to understand how life came to be. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that all the chemical reactions involved in life aren't know either, so maybe there's an insurmountable barrier to a naturalistic explanation yet: cross your fingers. Pasteur's statement remains true to this day because it is true. But read again the above qualifier. It's unlikely anyone will ask, so feel free to volunteer that little gem. Yes, it is held that life came from non-life. Yes, it is held that life came from non-life. And, ironically, the difference has been explained to you multiple times.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

the master debator wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------This leads me to believe that you don't correctly understand what Pasteurs experiments are. Can you please tell me in your own words what you think Pasteur did?-----------------------------------------------------------------------Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination. Any disagreement my friend??? Or maybe you are the one who really did not understand his experiment?If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

And do you think that researchers in abiogenisis believe that life on earth came about in conditions analogous to sterlized water protected from contamination?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Nonsense.I challenge you to (in a separate thread) name five frauds committed by "evolutionists."I'll even spot you the first one, Piltdown Man, which was actually a hoax because scientists were the victims of that hoax until they figured out what had actually happened. But I'll give you that one as a freebie.Your challenge is to come up with four genuine frauds committed by real evolutionary scientists.ps. Avoid the creationist websites, because they will lie to you. When it comes to science, they have no evidence for their position so they are forced to lie about what science has found and what those findings mean. Their claims have been refuted time and time again, so don't waste our time with their lies.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is not true. This is not coherent. This is not English. This, sadly is, true. This is why people like you recite the lies that you've been taught without spending five minutes to find out that they're bullshit.

Rahvin wrote------------------------------------------------------------------------First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy------------------------------------------------------------------------I,think you must review your logic class. A thing will become only an appeal to authority if an only if he or she is not an expert of that field. For example if we talk about gravity and you will quote Darwin that fallacy is appeal to authority since Darwin is not an expert on physics.Rahvin wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------And why??? Produce your evidence that it is not true.Rahvin wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------Quotes mean nothing.-----------------------------------------------------------------------So if I quote Eienstien idea on relativity it means nothing for you?? Or if quote Evariste or Abel ideas on group it still mean nothing for you. What a stupid mind do you have!!!Rahvin wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur produced no mechanism that prevents nonliving matter from forming life. None of his observations did anything of the sort.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Franky I dont like this tone of reasoning, so emotional. Have you ever prove experimentally that he was incorrect.??Rahvin wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------Second, the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is significant. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter may, through natural chemical reactions, spontaneously result in life. Spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently extant life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter - that is, maggots form from dead meat, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------There are many new forms of spontaneous genaration in the past and many new forms are yet coming as effot have been made to wipe away the increasing evidence of creation. In other words abiogenesis is just another mask of spontaneous genaration. If you look on the history of evolution, to the greece no new had been made. Only wishful speculations and boundless optimism. To be sure there is no discovery of intermediate forms of organism.Rahvin wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------And you'd be wrong. Fortunately, you are not responsible for defining terms
----------------------------------------------------------------------And who give you the authority to say that??? I define terms using logic.Rahvin wrote:-----------------------------------------------------------------------As I said, spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently existing life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter, such as maggots spontaneously forming from dead meat instead of hatching from eggs laid by a parent fly.Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter can, through natural chemical reactions, arrange itself into life. Not fully-formed extant life forms, but primitive, barely-meets-the-definition life.If you can't tell the difference between those two, I can't help you.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Oh, my dear you missed my entire point. My entire point is this. Abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration is similar in the sense that both are implying thta life is came from non- life. Is that idea really hard to grasp??Rahvin wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------Oddly enough, greater than 99% of all biologists hold the Theory of Evolution to be an incredibly accurate model of the observed mechanism of change over generations in populations of living things, as well as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life observed on Earth.That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.Now, if you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a gigantic fraud, please feel free to illuminate us. If you have no such evidence, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are simply yet another Creationist arguing from a position of complete ignorance in support of dogmatic belief.-----------------------------------------------------------------------I dont think so and its because of this report:An increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theoryu at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.---( New Scientist)

I agree. And how many scientists have suggested that the first life formed in sterilized water?

This is not a real quote. Whatever one may think of "New Scientist", their writers are at least literate.

And alchemy and nuclear physics are similar in that both imply that one element can turn into another.

Which issue of New Scientist, in what article, and on what page? Or as I rather suspect is it something either quoted from a creationist in one of New Scientists issues in which they engaged the issue or just plain made up.

Hi Mr Jack,The quote is attributed to New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828, on various web pages. The online archive for NS does not stretch back this far though.My suspicions are raised by this fact that the quote is taken from Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe, a dishonest piece of creationist garbage. I don't have a copy, but one web page presents the quote thus; Note that the quote seems to have been heavily cut up, presumably by Hitching. All the sources I've seen repeating it have done so without indicating the edits. All rather suspicious...Can anyone shed any more light on this?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi, Traste. All you had to do was read four messages upthread, and you would have realized that this question was already answered (Message 324). But, instead, you decided to drag out the thread for another round.Please keep up with the thread, Traste.-----Let me try again.Spontaneous generation is about REPRODUCTION: it is the idea that nature reproduces organisms as if from a factory. It suggested a repeating process, which regularly churned out copies of the same organism. Basically, it's the belief that nature is a maggot-cloning machine. Pasteur showed that organisms produce their own offspring, thus falsifying spontaneous generation.Abiogenesis is the idea that systems of chemical reactions can increase in complexity until they are complex enough to be considered "life." It does not suggest that organisms are the product of a natural cloning machine. Pasteur did not set up his experiment to touch on this.Here are some things that Pasteur did not do in his experimental set up:

1. He did not attempt to recreate the chemical conditions from the origin of life.
2. He did not give his experiment a long enough time to produce life through the gradual chemical processes proposed by abiogenesis.
3. He did not provide sufficient energetic input to power the chemical reactions proposed by abiogenesis.

And, there are probably plenty of others.The bottom line is that one experiment with negative results does not rule out everything that shares some similarity with the idea falsified.Edited by Bluejay, : "Agiogenesis" has too many G's for my tasteEdited by Bluejay, : "Som" is not an English word.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Yeah, I did my own detective work on it, it's a selective quote from Michael Ruse, from a piece called 'Darwin's Theory: an exercise in Science'. He was questioned about it during McLean vs. Arkansas trial, and claims that he was referring to the views of philosophers rather than scientists, it's here, about 343 to 347.From what I gather from that I think he was referring to the once popular notion amongst Popparian philosophers of science that Evolution is not falsifiable; he certainly wasn't making the point that the Quote Miners are trying to string out of it.