abiogenesis

Hi, Marc. You're fooling yourself.The only reason science was "taken over" by atheism is because this controversy exists.Edited by Bluejay, : Present tense is better than past tense was.

---

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

Hi, Marc. But they do not both fall under the same realm of "can be tested by comparing the growth of fungi in sealed and unsealed flasks left out for two months."That is the pivotal point here.Spontaneous generation was the idea that various abiotic materials are part of the life cycles of living organisms. Thus, there was supposedly a preset transformation of rotting meat into maggots the paralleled the metamorphosis of maggots into adult flies: that it was somehow part of the nature of rotting meat to transform into maggots.This is categorically not the same idea as incremental increases in chemical complexity. If you want to go the route of Pasteur and Redi having disproven Abiogenesis, then I'm afraid you'll likewise have to acknowledge that Pasteur and Redi have also disproven creation, as they witnessed no new animals being created in their flasks.-----Earlier in this thread, you made a big stink about how the word abiogenesis shouldn’t be used to include special creation or intelligent design. Now, expect me to make a big stink about how the word abiogenesis shouldn’t be used such that it includes spontaneous generation. And, I will repeatedly paste this very paragraph into my responses to each instance in which you equate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation until you agree to my terms the way I agreed to yours earlier in this thread.Edited by Bluejay, : added "and unsealed"

---

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

Hi, ZenMonkey. Do you really think anybody else could understand that mess?

---

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