Less than 2 minutes

Originally posted by googlefudge

Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?
It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of
spontaneous generation.

You have been shown that this is wrong enough times that you know that this is not
true and this statement is thus a flat out lie. [you are also working in a straw man for
...[text shortened]...


And then gives more details on abiogenesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog

I am not the one telling a lie.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Notice it says "life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation". The position of abiogenesis is also that life arises from non-living material. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not the one telling a lie.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living materia ...[text shortened]... s the position held by spontaneous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

As you have made clear numerous times in the past you equate abiogenesis
with spontaneous generation and thus you have frequently claimed that
Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis, read your post quite reasonably as saying
that Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis.

In such light my response was perfectly correct.

Unless a minor miracle has occurred and you had changed your mind about
whether or not Biogenesis disproved Abiogenesis before your previous post.

In which case I am still not lying, just mistaken.

So, have you changed your mind:

Do you think Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis are the same thing?

And do you believe that Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis?


EDIT: And your edit proves my point, I was correct.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As you have made clear numerous times in the past you equate abiogenesis
with spontaneous generation and thus you have frequently claimed that
Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis, read your post quite reasonably as saying
that Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis.

In such light my response was perfectly correct.

Unless a minor miracle has occurred a ...[text shortened]... that Biogenesis disproves Abiogenesis?


EDIT: And your edit proves my point, I was correct.

Yes, I believe abiogenesis is basically the same as spontaneous generation because the main claim of both is that life arises from non-living material of some sort.

And yes, I believe that the Law of Biogenesis has already disproven that claim of live arising from non-living things as the wikipedia article I referred has stated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?

Is it a religion? No, I do not 'believe in' it. I do think it is a reasonable scientific Law.

It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.
Agreed.

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?
Frequency.
The Law of Biogenesis merely states that if you find modern life, then there is a good chance that it is descended from prior life (essentially it supports evolution). It does not state that it is impossible for abiogenesis to take place.

I have to point out that if you were correct, and the Law of Biogenesis ruled out life arising from non-life, then it would rule out creation too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it a religion? No, I do not 'believe in' it. I do think it is a reasonable scientific Law.

[b]It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.
Agreed.

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?
Frequency.
The Law of Biog ...[text shortened]... the Law of Biogenesis ruled out life arising from non-life, then it would rule out creation too.[/b]

The law of Biogenesis does not rule out creation by God because God is life.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 14:6; 6:40

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it a religion? No, I do not 'believe in' it. I do think it is a reasonable scientific Law.

[b]It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.
Agreed.

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?
Frequency.
The Law of Biog ...[text shortened]... the Law of Biogenesis ruled out life arising from non-life, then it would rule out creation too.[/b]

Have a look at the videos I linked.

The idea that was disproved was that living matter contained and was
animated by living energy [life force] and that when something decayed
or rotted that life force would spontaneously generate maggots, flies,
MICE, mould, fungus, bacteria, ect.

And what was proved was that actually if you had a sealed sterilised container
of something these things like to eat, they wouldn't pop into existence inside it
they had to enter from outside.

It was actually a really nice piece of science.


It just [as you know] says absolutely nothing at all about the origins of life.

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
Have a look at the videos I linked.

The idea that was disproved was that living matter contained and was
animated by living energy [life force] and that when something decayed
or rotted that life force would [b]spontaneously generate maggots, flies,
MICE, mould, fungus, bacteria, ect.

And what was proved was that actually if you had a sea ...[text shortened]... olutely nothing at all about the origins of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP12uHdcS74[/b]

This video is good; but the narrator is misleading at the end. He states the Pasteur accepted evolution in the end, but he gives no evidence that he believe the general theory of evolution or accepted life could arise from non-life as claimed by the biogenesis hypothesis.

There is no reason to believe that molecules can just magically arrange themselves in the correct manner to produce any kind of life because man can not even do that.

About Pasteur and his religious beliefs

Pasteur said, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Skeptics, eager to downplay or denigrate creation scientists of the past, have rewritten the history of Pasteur and changed him into a skeptic embracing evolution and Darwin’s ideas. Yet his son-in-law, an eyewitness, writes in The Life of Pasteur, the most extensive biography yet written about Pasteur, regarding his last days of faith in Christ:

Absolute faith in God and in Eternity, and a conviction that the power for good given to us in this world will be continued beyond it, were feelings which pervaded his whole life; the virtues of the gospel had ever been present to him. Full of respect for the form of religion which had been that of his forefathers, he came simply to it and naturally for spiritual help in these last weeks of his life (Vallery-Radot 1911, vol. 2, p. 240).

On January 1, 1895 (nine months before his death), his colleague and friend Dr. Emily Roux brought him the flasks that Pasteur had used to disprove spontaneous generation (Vallery-Radot 1911, vol. 2, pp. 238–239), the mythical idea that life can “pop” into existence by time and chance. Pasteur seemed to reaffirm his belief in the Creator with no hint that Darwinism had replaced his belief. Then, for those who are skeptical about his belief in Christ, we go to the last day of his life, September 28, 1895 (4:40 p.m.), Louis Pasteur was found holding his wife’s hand with one hand and a crucifix with the other. He tightly gripped both for twenty-four hours. Does this sound like a man who had lost his faith in the Creator and in Christ?

In 1888, a grateful France founded the Pasteur Institute. In the closing paragraphs of his inaugural speech,

Pasteur said: Two opposing laws seem to me now to be in contest. The one, a law of blood and death opening out each day new modes of destruction, forces nations always to be ready for the battle. The other, a law of peace, work and health, whose only aim is to deliver man from the calamities which beset him. The one seeks violent conquests, the other, the relief of mankind. The one places a single life above all victories, the other sacrifices hundreds of thousands of lives to the ambition of a single individual. The law of which we are the instruments strives even through the carnage to cure the wounds due to the law of war. Treatment by our antiseptic methods may preserve the lives of thousands of soldiers. Which of these two laws will prevail, God only knows. But of this we may be sure, science, in obeying the law of humanity, will always labor to enlarge the frontiers of life. (Vallery-Radot 1901, 2, p. 289)

These are the translated words engraved above Pasteur’s tomb in the Pasteur Institute:

Blessed is the man who carries in his soul, God, a beautiful ideal that he obeys himself—ideal of art, ideal of science, ideal of the fatherland, and ideal of gospel virtues. Therein lie the springs of great thoughts and great actions. (Vallery-Radot 1958, p. 197)

Pasteur was truly a man of Christian character and action. Louis embraced the values of the Gospels throughout his life. His faith came simply and naturally for spiritual help and was most evident in the later stages of this life. Pasteur believed in prayer, the Bible, and the truths of the gospel as his goal. He encouraged others to do the same (Vallery-Radot 1911, vol. 2. p. 240).

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/louis-pasteurs-views-on-creation-evolution-germs/

Originally posted by RJHinds
This video is good; but the narrator is misleading at the end. He states the Pasteur accepted evolution in the end, but he gives no evidence that he believe the general theory of evolution or accepted life could arise from non-life as claimed by the biogenesis hypothesis.

There is no reason to believe that molecules can just magically arrange themselves ...[text shortened]...

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/louis-pasteurs-views-on-creation-evolution-germs/

Pasteur was not involved in evolution so why do you think just posting something by him is supposed to impress us? You could just as easily have said Stephen Hawking or Alan Turning. You can't expect us just to fall over and play dead looking at an opinion way outside his field of expertise.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Pasteur was not involved in evolution so why do you think just posting something by him is supposed to impress us? You could just as easily have said Stephen Hawking or Alan Turning. You can't expect us just to fall over and play dead looking at an opinion way outside his field of expertise.

Pasteur was proving evolution wrong by proving their idea of "spontaneous generation" was false. But instead of admitting defeat, the evolutionists just dusted it off and repackaged it under the name of "abiogenesis" in direct conflict with the Law of Biogenesis, which Pasteur had just proven. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pasteur was proving evolution wrong by proving their idea of "spontaneous generation" was false. But instead of admitting defeat, the evolutionists just dusted it off and repackaged it under the name of "abiogenesis" in direct conflict with the Law of Biogenesis, which Pasteur had just proven. 😏

"THEIR" idea of evolution? PLEAAASE. Just because someone from 200 years ago came up with that nonsense, don't attribute it to evolution. So you yet again bring up something from the frigging 19th century in your desperate attempt to shore up the flagging fantasy of creationism. Good luck with that.


NOT.

Originally posted by sonhouse
"THEIR" idea of evolution? PLEAAASE. Just because someone from 200 years ago came up with that nonsense, don't attribute it to evolution. So you yet again bring up something from the frigging 19th century in your desperate attempt to shore up the flagging fantasy of creationism. Good luck with that.


NOT.

I attribute it to evolution because other people have and becasue spontaneous generation was used to support the beginnings for the evolution theory back in those days. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I attribute it to evolution because other people have and becasue spontaneous generation was used to support the beginnings for the evolution theory back in those days. 😏

Thus once more proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you ARE an assshole.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no reason to believe that molecules can just magically arrange themselves in the correct manner to produce any kind of life...

This much is true.

To your too obviously meager mind, is this some major death blow to the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by C Hess
This much is true.

To your too obviously meager mind, is this some major death blow to the theory of evolution?

He didn't realize he was essentially denying the possibility of creation.

Originally posted by C Hess
This much is true.

To your too obviously meager mind, is this some major death blow to the theory of evolution?

Yes, because a supernatural intelligent designer with a mind is needed to create, organize, and program the molecules for the correct functions. 😏