ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey TOL subscribers, check the latest KnightCam® image, I think I found spontaneously generated life!!!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now that was a shocker!

 

[Vision in Verse]

Knight, your inability to clearly discuss an issue blinds you from the search for truth.

 

[GuySmiley]

Now that was a shocker!

Wow, there is no reason to think that isn't real . . . its amazing what organic molecules can do!

 

[zoo22]

Now that was a shocker!

Who would've thunk it... Knight provides the proof of evolution. :banana:

Who's gonna break the news to Bob B?

 

[zoo22]

Party pooper! Liberals have no sense of humor.

:squint:

 

[Vision in Verse]

Can we get back on topic now? Knight was saying that life did not come from non-life is not an assumption. I asked for reasoning. I'm still waiting.

 

[Turbo]

Which law of the universe does it contradict exactly?

Haven't you ever heard of the law of biogenesis, proven by Louis Pasteur? It's only about the most fundamental law of biology. :duh:

"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)​

But what did Louis Pasteur know? He was a Creationist, after all.

 

[Woodbine]

Haven't you ever heard of the law of biogenesis, proven by Louis Pasteur? It's only about the most fundamental law of biology. :duh:

"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)​

But what did Louis Pasteur know? He was a Creationist, after all.

Wow....I encourage anyone to read that Wiki page. It's blindingly obvious that creationist hands have been at work. Just count the number of times "evolutionist" appears. And check out this particularly sneering excerpt....

Thus Dr.Louis Pasteur finally overcame the longstanding belief in spontaneous generation of life. Even so, there were still people who chose to disregard the scientific evidence, and the 'belief' that life could spontaneously arise from non-life (abiogenesis) was still stubbornly held on to by some, including prominent, establishment figures such as Thomas Huxley ('Darwin's Bulldog').

.....feel the love!

 

[Turbo]

For those of you who missed this:

Do you similarly doubt the validity of all known laws of science, or just the ones that threaten your worldview?

All of them.
On that topic I would point out to you that physics dosen't make any sense.
Did you know that?
So much for the "Laws" of science you refer to.

Can you cite a scientific law which you are confident is valid?

No.

How is it that Evolutionists accuse Christian Creationists of rejecting science (when by "science" they really mean "evolution"), yet an evolutionist/atheist can say that he doubts the validity of every known scientific law and that "physics doesn't make any sense," and there isn't so much as a word about it from the other so-called "science-loving" evolutionists?

In fact the general theme of this thread has been Creationists embracing known scientific laws while Evolutionists dismiss them, suggest they are invalid, express ignorance of them, or pretend they don't exist.

 

[Turbo]

This thread has played out remarkably similarly to this one. Many of the players were the same. Knight had the usual suspects scrambling in vain to reconcile their atheistic evolutionary worldview with well-known laws of science. There the topic was the origin of the universe rather than the origin of life, and the well-known laws of nature that were giving the atheistic evolutionists such troubles were from thermodynamics instead of biology.

In both threads, SUTG is in the "'I don't know' bucket." Or maybe he doesn't want to know. :think:

SUTG, were you seriously unaware of the law of biogenesis as recently as three days ago, as this post suggests?

Even the simplest organisms do not arise from non-living matter.

Evidence?

Now that you are (hopefully) aware of the law of biogenesis, do you accept it as valid?

 

[Turbo]

Wow....I encourage anyone to read that Wiki page. It's blindingly obvious that creationist hands have been at work.

:shocked:

Just count the number of times "evolutionist" appears. And check out this particularly sneering excerpt....

Thus Dr.Louis Pasteur finally overcame the longstanding belief in spontaneous generation of life. Even so, there were still people who chose to disregard the scientific evidence, and the 'belief' that life could spontaneously arise from non-life (abiogenesis) was still stubbornly held on to by some, including prominent, establishment figures such as Thomas Huxley ('Darwin's Bulldog').

.....feel the love!

This thread corroborates the excerpt you quoted. Many in this very thread are still clinging to the idea "that life could spontaneously arise from non-life (abiogenesis)" and "disregard[ing] the scientific evidence" to the contrary.

You are among them.

 

[kame]

Appeal to authority ... woo.

Give us a billion years and oceans of organic chemicals before you rule out abiogenesis. Stop making absolute assumptions.

Any rational atheists still gives god a microscopic piece of rope in which to tug and prove he's around.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Haven't you ever heard of the law of biogenesis, proven by Louis Pasteur? It's only about the most fundamental law of biology. :duh:

"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)​

But what did Louis Pasteur know? He was a Creationist, after all.

I originally was not going to respond to this because it's already been addressed in this thread, but to clear up confusion and get things moving. Pasteur's experiment was to test one thing: "Do maggots form from dead meat?" The answer was no.
Turbo, do you wish to argue this rationally, step by step? I'm willing to do that.

 

[Johnny]

How is it that Evolutionists accuse Christian Creationists of rejecting science (when by "science" they really mean "evolution"), yet an evolutionist/atheist can say that he doubts the validity of every known scientific law and that "physics doesn't make any sense," and there isn't so much as a word about it from the other so-called "science-loving" evolutionists?

I don't think you understood what fool was saying.

In fact the general theme of this thread has been Creationists embracing known scientific laws while Evolutionists dismiss them, suggest they are invalid, express ignorance of them, or pretend they don't exist.

If you look a few pages back, you'll see Knight backing down on these "known scientific laws" and refusing to answer questions as to it's strength (or lack thereof). Would you care to pick up where he stopped?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If you look a few pages back, you'll see Knight backing down on these "known scientific laws" and refusing to answer questions as to it's strength (or lack thereof). Would you care to pick up where he stopped?

You mean "backing down" like when you hold your little brother pinned to the ground dripping spit near his face in torture?

If that's what you mean you might have a point.

 

[Johnny]

You mean "backing down" like when you hold your little brother pinned to the ground dripping spit near his face in torture?

No, I meant backing down like directly refusing to answer questions because of what they might do to your position.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, I meant backing down like directly refusing to answer questions because of what they might do to your position.

:rotfl:

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

 

[Johnny]

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

Ah, "ya got me". I'm going to name that particular rebuttal. Something like "Irrelevant insult defense" would be fitting.

I thought faith was a virtue.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I originally was not going to respond to this because it's already been addressed in this thread, but to clear up confusion and get things moving. Pasteur's experiment was to test one thing: "Do maggots form from dead meat?" The answer was no.
Turbo, do you wish to argue this rationally, step by step? I'm willing to do that.

Ahhh... I see now..... Pasteur's experiment only proved spontaneous generation didn't happen on meat! How could I have been so stupid???? :doh:

Maybe life spontaneously generates on peanut butter? :think: Pizza? :think: Twinkies? :think: Chicken? :think: Pork? :think: Dirty kitchen sponges? :think: Toilet bowls? :think:

How silly Pasteur was for not testing other items. :doh:

Tell me Vision in Verse, what is it about meat that is detrimental to spontaneous generation??? Why are underwater volcano's or puddle's of water more suitable for forming life than rotten meat? :idunno: Why are underwater volcano's or puddle's of water more suitable for forming life than controlled experiments in a laboratory with all the necessary ingredients?

But then again.... maybe meat does spontaneously generate life after all?
Maybe Pasteur's experiment (which is accepted by all of science) was insufficient in some way? Maybe you know better than all of science? Do tell.