PROOF against evolution

Yxifix, you are not arguing in good faith. YOU made the assertions when you stated the definitions, therefore it is up to YOU to defend them with evidence of some sort. You have not done so, since the Pasteur experiment and the hypothetical computer experiment have no bearing on the origins of biochemical information, since neither examines such origins.Also, I could give you a way for your fantasy computer experiment to fail: An electromagnetic disturbance scrambles the hard drive, accidentally producing binary code that codes for a small computer virus. It replicates, filling the hard drive. Voila! Information! First of all, in science there is no such thing as "proving" something, so from a scientific standpoint the answer will always be no. Pasteur simply provided evidence that strongly confirmed his hypothesis, and falsified the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.If you are speaking in layman's terms, where proof means strong evidence for or against a hypothesis, perhaps Pasteur did provide some "layman's proof". How does the evidence from Pasteur's experiments relate to your theory of origins of information? Please specifically explain the link if you think there is one...As I stated in my previous message: If you refuse to defend your assertions (namely the definitions) with evidence, you are simply revealing that you have no foundation for them and that they are merely your opinion.
_______________________________________________[As a side note: It was quite amusing to read your definition of "demagogy" and other logical fallacies, since you have committed most of them in this thread multiple times. I appreciate that the "appealing to the emotion" fallacies includes the example of simply calling someone a demagogue rather than responding to their points - you've done that at least a dozen times.Be careful who you call a demagogue, since you practice more demagogy than anyone else in this thread.]

yxifix -I haven't forgotten these processes that YOU (not I) brought up. I haven't answered these questions: 1) because they do not apply to a discussion of the origin of life and information, and 2) because any argument, out of scientific evidence or logic will be met with the following reply: So I see little point in debating "the origin of tissues" point.You should really start arguing in good faith, and try to be less adversarial - this would be a potentially interesting debate if you weren't so reactionary and rude. First of all, I didn't say that. I was simply giving you a framework of scientific evidence.Also, given the nature of scientific inquiry, you do NOT test the hypothesis "intelligence was needed to provide the information at the beginning of life" by doing an experiment that gives the negative result, "lack of intelligence on a small scale in a non-biochemical environment created no information". The experiment/result does not test/support your hypothesis on multiple points.More importantly, your computer experiment is imaginary, even if it was done it would not be on the scale necessary (billions of computers for a billion years), and has absolutely no bearing on self-replicating biochemical molecules.Also why don't you address the possibility of information originating in your computer experiment:I could give you a way for your fantasy computer experiment to fail: An electromagnetic disturbance scrambles the hard drive, accidentally producing binary code that codes for a small computer virus. It replicates, filling the hard drive. Voila! Information!Even if you computer experiment was scientifically correct (it is not), one experiment does not "prove" a hypothesis.I am now stating at least for the third time: If you refuse to defend your assertions and arguments with evidence, you are simply revealing that you have no foundation for them and that they are merely your opinion.If you do not provide answers actually addressing the above points, (rather than rehashing old faulty messages), we can only assume you are practicing demagogy.

Yxifix quotes in a previous message: Emphasis mine... Implication should be obvious...