Transition from chemistry to biology

I dont think so.No experiment confirmation.

Biogenesis is not a real scientific law because its againts abiogenesis thats it?I think Im on the thread now.

Oh are you defining or imposing?

What is absolute and correct abiogenesis that disprove long ago by Pasteur?Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE.Do year any experiment producing life from non life?If youy hear your alone.

Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

Maybe.But dont you know that even some supporters of evolution acknowledge that Pasteur experiment settle the contreversy that surrounds spontaneous genaration?How would you reconcile your view with them?You are so vigilance in spoting that Pasteur is an elderly,how about Darwin is he not an elderly to?You contend that Pasteur work maybe wrong,dont you realize that Darwin's work maybe wrong too because he is an elderly?You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution.

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"?That statement remains true no laboratoty models produce living things from non living things.Do you hear some?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..Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay".I will quote Stephen Meyer if you ask me who is Meyer will he is one of the supportets of intelligent design,and who is Pilbeam by the way?Meyer said that Pasteur's experiment show that life could not began from non life.

I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?In my reply in Feb 10 2009 I apologize if I did not recognize evolutionist Francis Hitching as my reference.This what he said "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reaction water in any case inhibits the growth ofmore complex molecules"Dont you hear about that thing?Or your only so concern to the idea that supports evolution?By the way you imply that circle is not a square I agree as a person who has undergone rigid training in mathemathics I know for sure that there is no such thing,but it does not mean that there is no such thing as difficulties in evolution.In fact chemist Richard Dickerson said"it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation.And biochemist George Wald said "spontaneous dissulution is much more probable and hence proceed rapidly than spontaneus synthesis"He acknowledge "this the most stubborn problem that confronts"evolutionary theory.But the difficulties does not stop there.But for sure you dont know about those difficulties.As a student of mathemathics a branded evolution mathemathically erroneus.

You are correct.Our creator is needed for such complexities and precision.

Who is Pilbeam in the first place?If I say that I believe that spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?

The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.

At least you accept it is a fairy tale.Because you imply evolution is well supported by evidence,could you please go further from that rather than asserting it is well supported?You could demonstrate whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.Mathemathics plays a big role here since we are talking chance events.But none of you guys ever me a mathemethical proof that the complexities and precision observe in life came by change.The real conclusion is God did it.

It is necessary since we are talking chance events.Randomness imply change events isnt it?So the science of mathemathical probability plays a big role here.Could you demonstrate now?I hope you absorb well your basic algebra so that I dont get any trouble when explaining.

I dont think so that you absorb your mathemathics well.Evolution implies randomness,in fact it implies that the complexities observe in life came by chance.So since the science of mathemathical probabality deal with chance events it plays a big role there.I dont hear any mathemathics supports evolution but mathemathics speak againts it.

How about the absurdness that the complexities and organaztion in life came about by chance?You have a lotof theories but nothing explains that the complexities in life came by chance.Can you afford to say that the law of trigonometry came because mathemathicians draw zig zag line?Non sense too isnt it?If mathemathics did not came by chance,how about life that is more complex than it?Logic isnt it?Do you agree if I say the computer you are using now came because the computer manufacturing company exploded?Absurdness isnt it?Now how about life that is more complex than computer do they came by accident?Foolishness isnt it?So because every complex things today have a designer,it is logical to say that life too have a designer.Another logic isnt it?So all the current theories that supports evolution as Dean Kenyon puts it has"fundamental flaw".And by the way who is Dean Kenyon?Isnt it he was a former supporter evolution and co author of the book Biochemical Predestanation.If the evidence of evolution is as strong as what you believe,then why he abandoned it?My conclusion that all current theories that supports evolution is nothing but an exposition of ignorance,in the sense that they dont explain how the complexties ,organization,precision came by chance.Do you understand now?