Dont you know that there is a method in science to take only a part of the whole and study them and from that we deduct our conclusion?
But as has been explained to you many times, Pasteurs experiment is different from any potential experiments which could be conducted into abiogenesis. Look at Miller/Urey or any other experiment which has resulted in complex organic molecules similar to those found in living organisms. The usual reaction from creationists is that the early earths atmosphere is not know so it's been 'fixed' to promote the formation of these organic molecules. But now here you are holding up this one experiment as proof that abiogenesis could not occur, as if a flask of cooked meat broth open to the air is an accurate model of the early earth. Do you think it is a good model?
Of course if we repeated Pasteurs experiment and life did appear from the sterile broth you could quite legitimately say this wasn't evidence for abiogenesis on the early earth, and I would agree with you.
I know Urey and Miller's experiment, that experiment rest on the assumption that the primative atmosphere was reducing, as Miller and his co workres put it " the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere.
The only suggestions I can find that the early earth had an oxidising atmosphere seems to be creationist web sites. Their arguments seem to feature iron oxidisation resulting in 'banded iron formations' although these would act as oxygen sinks and would have to exhausted before atmospheric oxygen would build up; or discussion of the late archaen/early proterozoic, which is after life appeared over 3.4 billion years ago.
But here we are arguing over atmospheric conditions for experiments looking at abiogenesis, which confirms the point I was trying to make in my previous post, just as Son has pointed out in Message 373. Unlike experiments by Miller and Urey et al. you have completely ignored Pasteurs methodology in performing his own experiment.
But that still leave the possibilities that life might arose spontaneuosly. And you will say this is acceptable. But as we know Pasteur's expriment did not in favor of that.
Life appearing through a repeat of Pasteurs experiment would be supportive of spontaneous generation, but that still wouldn't be supportive of abiogenesis. As has been pointed out by others on this thread, in science the study of abiogenesis generally involves how life first began on earth. This involves trying to model as accurately as possible the environment of the early earth and identifying the chemicals that form which may be capable of developing into life. Can we agree that a flask of cooked meet broth open to a modern environment is not a suitable model?