Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Introduction

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that

This is not true the sources you keep quoting are liars. Did you not understand me saying that spontaneous generation is a theory and a weak one. I gave it more credbility then it deserves by refering to it as a theory. By your sources own words "life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature"

Then to say creationists do not believe in evolution is a lie. We believe in micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

But until you can show otherwise with evidence biogenesis is a known law. Abiogenesis is wishful thinking.

Seriously the only one beffuddled is yourself and your sources.

Biogenesis is not a law. It's not possible to disprove something that does not exist.

Otherwise, I wasn't aware that you were tasked with being the spokes-fundie for creationist. Such a weighty burden you bear.

So, Mr. spokes-fundie, give us the creationist account of evolution that took place over just a few thousand years following Noah's cruise to nowhere.

What's you best conspiracy theory that refutes paleontology, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. which support a 4.5 billion year old earth.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

So, you lied to me.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

I have to dissect your nonsense and show people the truth. You're hoping I ignore your ignorance.

Only when I feel I need to respond to you then I will. Really though most people should know by now you're full of crap.

What have you dissected so far? And why make your melodramatic, hysterical threats to ignore my posts when you continually come running back like a crack whore needing a fix?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I might as well clear this up so you and daws do not keep posting this nonsense.

If you come across a creationist that rejects micro-evolution or in another term micro-adaptations they are simply wrong and not educated in the sciences.

Where we differ from your side is your side believes this micro-evolution comes from mutations and natural selection.

We believe new traits and characteristics arise from genetic information that already exists in the gene pool and passed on through heredity. We also believe natural selection will play a role for making a new trait or function in the gene pool the norm.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Hollie]

I might as well clear this up so you and daws do not keep posting this nonsense.

If you come across a creationist that rejects micro-evolution or in another term micro-adaptations they are simply wrong and not educated in the sciences.

Where we differ from your side is your side believes this micro-evolution comes from mutations and natural selection.

We believe new traits and characteristics arise from genetic information that already exists in the gene pool and passed on through heredity. We also believe natural selection will play a role for making a new trait or function in the gene pool the norm.

Do you have a certificate of authenticity that denotes you as the spokes-fundie for all creationist?

I just find it difficult to believe that a Harun Yahya groupie would be elected to the position you seem to have assigned yourself.

So.... how do we account for the fosill record (other than with conspiracy theories) dating back to the BN (before Noah), time period?

 

[Hollie]

I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.

Running for the exits again.

In typical fashion, you find your lies, false claims and cut and paste "quotes" fail to offer a coherent argument.

 

[YWN666]

bullshit
Louis Pasteur stated the law of biogenesis, that life originates from life. This was meant not as a comment on the origin of all life, but instead as an overturning of the belief in spontaneous generation, that is, that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria could appear fully formed. The statement of his law also advanced his germ theory.
Origin of Life
Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.



Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow


Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow
once again ywc gets his ass handed to him.

oh and btw isn't creationism that yammers on about lifeforms being poofed into existence?

slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.

Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.

 

[YWN666]

Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist? If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?

the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??

If god wanted to, he could have created us all as mindnumbingly stupid creationists so there would be no one to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the "theory"

 

[YWN666]

If you keep copying and pasting the same nonsense do you think it's anymore credible? Biogenesis goes against any thought of spontaneous generation. Do I need to spell this out for you ?

As a viable theory, biogenesis is as pointless and as dismissable as creationism.

You're are a fool.

Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.

You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.

 

[YWN666]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

So, you lied to me.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

I have to dissect your nonsense and show people the truth. You're hoping I ignore your ignorance.

Only when I feel I need to respond to you then I will. Really though most people should know by now you're full of crap.

She has done an excellent job of exposing you as a fraud (although not much effort was necessary as the "creationist" label you use kills your credibility from the start).

 

[YWN666]

I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.

That makes, what, 6 times you've responded to her saying that you won't respond to her anymore?

 

[itfitzme]

slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

Yeah, unfortunately, it proves equally that life isn't creates by god. So now, after all your wasted effort to attempt to imply that if abiogenisis is false, that therefore god is true, you have demonstrated nothing.

The fundamental flaw in all your reasoning, which you avoid stating because you prefer denial, is as I previously was nice enough to state for you.

You would like to claim god must be true unless proven false. But that is simply not how it works. The hypothesis of god does not "fill in" simply because there is no proof of abiogenisis as the initial origination of life.

The correct assertion is that, given the correctness of evolutionary theory in both the history of discovered facts and the predictions of future biological changes, within the degree of certainty that can be achieved, the appropriate hypothesis is

at some point in the distant past, there was a remarkable and rare event, no matter how unlikely, of abiogenesis that began life on this planet.

What we know, as much as anything, from statistics, is that, however unlikely it may be, shit happens.

The lesson that "shit happens" is an important one. A common misperception is to conclude from observation of a single event, that the event must represent the norm because if it was unlikely then it would be unlikely to have been observed. If anything, the statistical methidology of science takes asucj care to avoid this fallacy, the fallacy of "shit don't happen".

The marvel of evolution is that it takes advantage of the reality that unlikely events occur if you just wait long enough.

But, like all shit that happens, the statistical unlikelyhood of shit happens makes it extremely difficult to prove a particular instance of shit happening.

As much as you would like to, the theory of god doesn't substitute for the theory of shit happens. Nor does the fallacy of shit don't happen stand as proof of god.

The only grounds that tbe hypothesis of god has is to claim that god is responsible for shit happening. Yet, I can define and refine a measure of shit happens as a sequence of probability, 10%...1%...0.1%...and onward, to the finest level that I have time to waste. And, simply by flipping coins, I can prove to any degree of certainy, to an absolute degree of certainty, that shit just happens all by itself.

You have two possible answers on the origins of life.

A designer or spontaneous generation through natural processes. We know that Biogenesis refutes spontaneous generation through natural processes.

It refutes god identically. No observation of abiogenisis, no observation of god. Identical. Biogenisis observasion and a lack abiogenisis is insufficient to come to a conclusion either way.

 

[itfitzme]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

Same thing, living organisms producing living organisms. Not god producing living matter. Your view is a hypothesis, my view is scientific fact.

 

[itfitzme]

Sorry I missed the convo in real time, but then again, it went nowhere. Nothing changed in the point that <a>biogenisis is insufficient to prove or disprove evolution and god. It simply leaves the question of how life began as unaswered.

It is interesting to learn that creationism views life as being cut from whole cloth and says adaptation is is simply the expression of already existant genes. I'll have to verify that, though, as creationists have a habit of mangling things. "I don't know" gets replaced by god, with no reason as to why that particular "I don't know" at that particular point. I have no way of knowing if the replacement is the result of the reporter or the hypothesis.

And this makes consistent sense.

"God" <=> "I don't know".

I can't explain it...god
Shit happens...god.
No reason...god has a plan
I don't want to know<=>god.
I don't want to admit it<=>god
I don't want to be responsible<=>god

Perfect.

Now I know.

 

[daws101]

slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.

If you keep copying and pasting the same nonsense do you think it's anymore credible? Biogenesis goes against any thought of spontaneous generation. Do I need to spell this out for you ?

Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.

 

[daws101]

Living fossils refute that everything is still evolving and it refutes gradual evolution,another term gradualism.

bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.

Living fossil - RationalWiki

no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .

How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?

your explanation is based on a false premise...
by definition it's not valid.

 

[daws101]

It's simple,provide the evidence that refutes the claim.

it refutes itself "Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."
like I said : subjective, judgmental false declaration...
can't get an easier than that.

You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !

lol! you do realize that this: Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."ywc ..obliterates even the imaginary credibility you never had.

 

[daws101]

Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist? If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?

the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??

Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?

So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.

he basic design of humans is highly flawed.

 

[westwall]

Living fossils refute that everything is still evolving and it refutes gradual evolution,another term gradualism.

bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.

Living fossil - RationalWiki

no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .

How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?

No, "they" don't. Evolution is based on mutations. Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism. It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial. If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around. Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial. In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years. Everything depends on the environment. That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.

 

[daws101]

You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !

The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".

What ? no response to my explanations.

the shit you attempt to pass of as explanations are not!