Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The law of biogenesis!

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Robert. Yes, you are seeing why I stated my objection to the use of spontaneous generation as was made. The way creationists use the idea of
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #2563):
      > OK, I ran across this on the Internet:
      >
      >> Law of Biogenesis
      >
      > http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB000.html
      >
      >> Claim CB000:
      >
      >> Pasteur and other scientists disproved
      >> the concept of spontaneous generation
      >> and established that life comes only from
      >> previous life.
      >
      >> Response:
      >
      >> 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.
      >
      > That is kinda what I was trying to propose. That is, that whatever
      > this much touted scientific law might actually deal with, it isn't
      > what some want to make of it.
      >
      > In other words, the law, whatever it might be, doesn't really say
      > anything about the origin of life, much less "supernatural"
      > origins.
      >
      > And I am still wondering if anyone is going to come up with more
      > about how religious folks fought against the law of biogenesis
      > based on their interpretations of scripture. That reference I gave
      > early indicated there may be a very geocentric story about all of
      > that.
      >
      > David, Todd, "mathewmaury", am I at least on the right track here?

      Hi, Robert.

      Yes, you are seeing why I stated my objection to the use
      of "spontaneous generation" as was made. The way creationists use the
      idea of spontaneous generation is a classic case of the rhetorical
      debate technique of bait-and-switch. While it is an effective
      rhetorical tactic it is simply wrong.

      Here are some online references related to my earlier comments
      regarding the distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous
      generation:

      Bill Morgan's Question: Spontaneous Generation
      http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_spontaneous.html

      A History of Microbiology
      http://microbes.historique.net/history2.html

      Abiogenesis
      ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy (beta version)
      http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

      Evolution Education Wiki - Abiogenesis
      http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Abiogenesis

      Wikipedia - Abiogenesis
      http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

      AnyBoard Forum Discussions
      Subject: Abiogenesis and Evolution
      http://anyboard.net/soc/2think/archive/23799.html

      Regards,
      Todd S. Greene
      http://www.creationism.cc/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.