Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. [See pages 13-21]
So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed increasing time.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[GodlessHeathen]

<Getting popcorn>

[ubs]

Pahu, is this YOUR position? Or do you just skip around the internet sprinkling random quotes? I'd like to know before I dive in.

ubs wrote

Pahu, is this YOUR position? Or do you just skip around the internet sprinkling random quotes? I'd like to know before I dive in.

I believe what the facts suggest.

[ubs]

Pahu wrote

I believe what the facts suggest.

Pahu, if tomorrow scientists observed the creation of life and recorded it, would you then believe in Evolution? The God of the Gaps is always shrinking.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

The God of the Gaps is always shrinking.

Yes, but the faith of the foolish is ever growing!

[Demigod79]

I've encountered him before. He copies and pastes random creationist propaganda on atheist sites. He's basically just a troll.

[ubs]

Demigod79 wrote

I've encountered him before. He copies and pastes random creationist propaganda on atheist sites. He's basically just a troll.

Not just a troll, but a crappy troll. Troll quality seems to be in a state of decay all over the web these days.

[selliedjoup]

Pahu must be right I guess.

[ghoulslime]

I would be interested to see the evidence that the very silly individual, who is postulating that life never arises except from life, actually possesses. I welcome any and all data which demonstrates that throughout the universe, this is fact.

There appears to be evidence that life, at least in one instance, arose from the proper chemical combination, and nothing more. This appears at this point to be how life began on our planet. Was there some evidence that something in addition to this naturalistic explanation was required or had a hand in the emergence of life on earth? Let us see the evidence!

Also, please explain how the initial emergence of life on Earth, regardless of how it transpired, could disprove the empirically-demonstrable fact of Darwinian Evolution?

Might I venture to point out, that the author of this thread is a complete imbecile?

ghoulslime wrote

I would be interested to see the evidence that the very silly individual, who is postulating that life never arises except from life, actually possesses. I welcome any and all data which demonstrates that throughout the universe, this is fact.

There appears to be evidence that life, at least in one instance, arose from the proper chemical combination, and nothing more. This appears at this point to be how life began on our planet. Was there some evidence that something in addition to this naturalistic explanation was required or had a hand in the emergence of life on earth? Let us see the evidence!

The only evidence I am aware of is what is observed, tested, and confirmed. The origin of life fails that test, as I shared.

Also, please explain how the initial emergence of life on Earth, regardless of how it transpired, could disprove the empirically-demonstrable fact of Darwinian Evolution?

What empirically-demonstrable fact are you referring to?

Might I venture to point out, that the author of this thread is a complete imbecile?

Why do you believe that. Does your accusation include the scientists confirming the conclusions?

[ghoulslime]

Pahu wrote

The only evidence I am aware of is what is observed, tested, and confirmed.

So kindly provide us with all of the data that you have collected which demonstrates that:

1. The first living organism on Earth came from another living organism.

2. All living organisms throughout the universe, at all times, always came from another life form.

(Evidence which comes from voices in your head is invalid.)

Pahu wrote

The origin of life fails that test, as I shared.

The only thing that has failed is your brain.

Pahu wrote

What empirically-demonstrable fact are you referring to?

The physical evidence which demonstrates the fact of Evolution is a good start. (You might be able to find some information about Evolution by studying a middle school science book.)

Pahu wrote

Why do you believe that. Does your accusation include the scientists confirming the conclusions?

You have provided more than sufficient evidence for your idiocy thus far. Feel free to add to the data.

[zdave]

Far out, yet another regurgitated argument from ignorance. But it's OK Pahu, ignorance can be fixed with education. If you don't learn then you're skillfully dodging the education, which as I'm sure you agree is reaching for stupid.

Pahu wrote

The only evidence I am aware of is what is observed, tested, and confirmed. The origin of life fails that test, as I shared.

Which test? That bizarre slightly modified version of the cosmological argument that fails to address even one of the problems that were inherent in the original version? This is not a test, it's an argument... and a shitty one at that, and here's why.

Cosmological arguments make the presumption that the universe had to begin. That's it... you're making an assumption. If you can't get beyond the first point of the argument then you cannot continue through the rest of them. Prove the universe had to begin! Kudos on spirit though. See, I don't have an answer to the question of "Did the universe begin?"... I could speculate, or consider it, but I have 0 (zero) foundation of information on which to base my conclusion. If you have some additional information regarding the beginning of the universe/life, then please present it so we may all be informed.

What empirically-demonstrable fact are you referring to?

OK, how about the Japanese Crabs? How about the Tusked Elephants? How about the Peppered Moth? All three are empirically demonstrable. Can you testify that creation is anywhere near as demonstrable as this? (P.S. The answer of "Just look around you" is not a demonstration.)

Why do you believe that. Does your accusation include the scientists confirming the conclusions?

[/quote]

Because Pahu, you haven't displayed even the slightest notion of understanding the basic principles of this argument. Research, read, learn, discuss etc. Here is the information... either you educate yourself, or you will willfully turn away from it. The choice is now yours what to do with reality.

P.S. If you read up those links and find yourself saying "That's artificial selection! Not natural selection", remember, we're talking about evolution. So please don't argue down that path. Sorry if you weren't going to, but I'm just trying to cover the base.

[ghoulslime]

zdave wrote

Cosmological arguments make the presumption that the universe had to begin. That's it... you're making an assumption. If you can't get beyond the first point of the argument then you cannot continue through the rest of them. Prove the universe had to begin! Kudos on spirit though. See, I don't have an answer to the question of "Did the universe begin?"... I could speculate, or consider it, but I have 0 (zero) foundation of information on which to base my conclusion. If you have some additional information regarding the beginning of the universe/life, then please present it so we may all be informed.

[ghoulslime]

selliedjoup wrote

Pahu must be right I guess.

Could you please explain to the author of this thread why he is wrong, Jerry?