Which is what I've been saying all along.
Yes, and you've had it wrong all along. The above is terribly worded, and gives the wrong impression. Every creationist in the world has grabbed onto it and has distorted the meaning of Pasteur's work. It's kind of like a liberal claiming that the "general welfare" expression in the constitution authorizes the welfare state.
Think about it. How could Pasteur, working more than a century ago, have done what you claim he did? How could he have proven that life absolutely cannot arise from non-living matter? Where is this work of his written up? Don't show me sloppily-worded definitions of "biogenesis." Show me Pasteur's work on molds. Then you'll see what I'm talking about.
Pasteur showed why food spoiled. That's all. This has been blown wildly out of proportion, spun, jazzed up, and lied about, and now we have the "law of biogenesis" which is allegedly blessed by Pasteur's name, proving what creationists would love to prove but cannot. Pasteur only disproved the weird theory of his time called "spontaneous generation" which was about mold, not the origin of life.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating this simple stuff over and over again. (For some, yes, but not for you.) I know you're bright. I want you to ponder this and then let me know whether you get it or not.
No I haven't.
The above is terribly worded, and gives the wrong impression
It's from the Oxford University Press.
Whether he proved it or not, it is considered axiomatic.
Obviously, life at some point came from non-life. And energy was added into the universe. But the laws of nature establishing these paradoxes were conceived with the idea that a supernatural creator was axiomatic.
In fact, I doubt these discoveries could have been if they were not based on the assumption of God.
There is nothing wrong with assuming God's existence. Even if you have doubts, it is best to assume God's existence and live one's life accordingly. The odds are strongly stacked in favor of God's existence.