quote: I have concluded that since there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, since this idea contradicts cell theory and Law of Biogenesis (already a post), and that there is not even a scientific model concerning abiogenesis, it is logical to dismiss it as a hypothetical
As has already been pointed out there is no good reason to think that the alleged "law of biogenesis" is a real scientific law. Nor is there any alternative to natural abiogenesis that is even equally good by your own criteria. Thus the only consistent conclusion you could adopt is one of complete agnosticism on the origin of life.
quote: Doesnâ€™t science work in the exact opposite? Are we not supposed to make the observations and then make conclusions.
What are the research experiments but ways of making observations ?
quote: What observations are there in abiogenesis- there was no life, then there was? Seems to me this type of observation leaves a lot of room for other interpretations
There are all the experiments carried out by the researchers. And really what possiiblity other than life coming from non-life is consistent with the observation "there was no life, then there was ?" There may be many possibilities on HOW life came from non-life but ALL of them would be abiogenesis (by definition).
quote: I was brought up that everything was created by God. But then, once I got into college (secular university) I began to question the evidence for a creator. This search for evidence has brought me to what I believe a very open-mined, unbiased (albeit not completely) search for truth.
Since you're citing bogus "evidence" (the "law of biogenesis"), not consistently applying your own criteria and apparently badly misconstruing the arguments offered, I have to say that bias seems to dominate your conclusion.
quote: I have heard so many times that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different ideas. Well, this may be true by definition (the textbooks sure lump them together), but they are definitely tied together.
The origin of life has some implications for the way life developed, but that is pretty much about it.
quote: Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. This is why scientists are so frantically trying to come up with any sort of evidence that even remotely appears to address abiogenesis. T
Definitely false. Firstly anti-evolutionists frequently appeal to additional abiogenesis events (creation) that are definitely at odds with Pasteur's actual observations (i..e they require complex multi-cellular life forms to come into existence). Abiogenesis is a cornerstone of THEIR beliefs. Abiogenesis is a very big and very interesting problem which is the real reason for interest in it. Even if abiogenesis were proven impossible the evidence for evolution would mean that evolution remained, untouched.
Pasteur's experiment was aimed at the idea that the (modern) microrganisms associated with decay were the product of that decay rather than the cause. It is utterly absurd to suggest that his experiments ruled out the possibility of life forming be natural processes.
quote: Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?
The statement is too unclear for me to agree with it or disagree with it.
quote: I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE
I think that jumping to conclusions far in excess of the evidence - as you do in your assessment of Pasteur's experiments - is not a characteristic of good science at all.
quote: I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?
It's part of the "doctrine of spontaneous generation" referred to.
You can't hope to understand what the experiment proved unless you know what the experiment was.
quote: Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me
If they do, then they are not using the words in the exact same sense as Pasteur.
quote: Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay"
Nobody is quoting Pilbeam on this subject. YOU wrongly tried to discuss your arguments in a thread concerning a quote from Pilbeam - even though it had nothing to do with the subject you wanted to discuss.
quote: I will quote Stephen Meyer
I know who Meyer is. Quoting him won't do you any good.
As I've already told you Pasteur's experiment was all about the controversy over whether (modern) microorganisms caused decay or were the product of decay. His statement asserted that his experiment conclusively proved that the former was true and that the latter was false.
Given the nature of the experiment there is simply no way that it could rule out modern ideas of abiogenesis. So all you are doing is insulting Pasteur's memory by painting him as a fool who completely failed to understand the limits of his own experiment.
quote: It sounds that you dont really know his experiment,so stop pretending.Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination.
My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important.