Replies

Pasteur was an evolutionist (lamarkian).

Really? Citation, please (and it's "Lamarck", not "Lamark"... I mean, good grief).

Also, he had nothing to say (and his experiments had nothing to say) about abiogenesis on an early earth. His experiments disproved the idea that germs (and many insects) are formed in decaying food. This has nothing to do with whether pre-biotic molecules formed on the ancient earth.

Horsefeathers... you Government-Dependent, Tax-Suckling Evolutionist Liar. Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis is one of the very most universally-recognized, fundamentally-proven, and fundamenetally-predictive Laws of Science; just for example, I'll cite Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry on Rudolph Virchow: “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology.” (1973, p. 35).

I note in passing that, as usual, you blather on without ANY probative evidentiary citations for your claims.

La génération spontanée est une chimère"

Evolutionists BLINDLY ASSERT an Exception to this rule based upon their UNPROVEN SPECULATIONS of "pre-biotic molecules formed on the ancient earth"...

...But the fact remains that Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing), remains 100% Proven and Predictive in regard to all laboratory experiments EVER, the Evolutionist Fantasies of Random Chemical Abiogenesis remain ZERO-Evidenced and Scientifically-Unpredictive in regard to all laboratory experiments EVER...

...and so you Tax-Suckling Evolutionists are still happy to soak up the Hard-Earned Tax-Dollars of Productive Creationist Americans in support of your Government-Subsidized Evolutionist Fantasy... A Fantasy which, until Pasteur's Law is overthrown, is still against Scientific Law!

And you DARE to say, "well, Gubmint Edumbifikashun will be with us forever, so let's make the most of it"... of course you support Publik Skooling! You Tax-Suckling Evolutionists are amongst the prime beneficiaries of the Publik Skools! Just as Abortion and Homosexuality is not exactly a good recipe for Liberal Demographic Success, you Evolutionists likewise get testy when your own breeding-grounds are threatened.

We have already found fully-preserved soft organic tissue in the bones of dinosaurs, which are alleged to be "70 million years" old -- despite the fact that it is BIOCHEMICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE for soft organic tissues to last more than 100,000 years (let alone being still perfectly-preserved and elastic). ~~ Sorry, the creationists are lying through their teeth on this. There was no *soft tissue* found. Here was REALLY happened: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

Sorry, it is YOU who are lying through your teeth on this. Don't you even READ your own citations?

On 24 March 2005, a team of paleontologists lead by Mary Higby Schweitzer published their discovery of dinosaur soft tissues recovered from the cortical bone of a T. rex femur.

Respected Evolutionists are NOT responding, as you are, that "There was no *soft tissue* found"; because there WAS Soft Tissue found, you Liar. Rather, Evolutionists are scrambling to find a possible explanation for the existence of Preserved Disosaurian Soft Tissue:

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK. (etc.)

In other words, the Evolutionists know that they have run into a serious bugger of a problem, and they're attempting to explain it away. This is to be expected, of course; they've already admitted that soft organic tissue should not last beyond 100,000 years:

"Our theories don't allow for this,"

But the fact is, as Paleontological Excavators are willing to admit, the Organic Soft Tissue is there (despite your Lying Claims); the only question is whether or not the Evolutionists can now invent an entirely new theory of molecular fossilization to account for the inconvenient existence of Preserved Dinosaurian Soft Tissue.

Of course, I'm sure that you Evolutionists will come up with something.

Once you have become so Emotionally-Beholden to your Irrational Evolutionist Religion that you are willing to ignore the 100%-Proven, 100%-Predictive, and Perpetually-Evidenced Law of Biogenesis in order to use Government Monies to Enslave other peoples' Children to your Totally-Unproven Fantastic Speculations of "Random Chemical Abiogenesis" and other such Atheistic-Evolutionist just-so-stories, I'm sure that nothing is beneath you.

But know this, you Government-Dependent, Tax-Suckling, Evolutionist Liar:

Abolish the Publik Skools, and your Foolish Atheistic-Religion of Evolutionism is Dead.

Stop stealing our Wealth... and we will Out-Breed you.
And let the Demographic Fittest... Survive.

Best, OP

"Horsefeathers... you Government-Dependent, Tax-Suckling Evolutionist Liar. Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis is one of the very most universally-recognized, fundamentally-proven, and fundamenetally-predictive Laws of Science;"

Sorry, it has nothing to say about abiogenesis. You are very misinformed. BTW, you're unchristian behavior isn't getting you any points with God.

"Evolutionists BLINDLY ASSERT an Exception to this rule based upon their UNPROVEN SPECULATIONS of "pre-biotic molecules formed on the ancient earth"..."

Please explain how experiments with rotting food in a test tube shows that abiogenesis (which isn't evolution, btw) isn't possible.

"Sorry, it is YOU who are lying through your teeth on this. Don't you even READ your own citations?"

If you actually read the link, you would know that *soft* isn't what you claim it is. Then again, you have reading troubles, I am asking too much of you. The creationists lied through their teeth about what was discovered.

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years.

Of course, this statement was made, not by a scientist, but by a Los Angeles Times reporter, someone who, in any other context, you'd assume to be a lying idiot. And he's certainly an idiot in this case. The entire premise of the movie Jurassic Park was that amber, an organic polymer, has been preserved at least since the age of the dinosaurs. Moreover, flies, which don't have a calcareous skeleton and thus are 100% organic molecules, are preserved in that amber. While the notion we could recover dinosaur DNA from such amber is fanciful, the amber itself is not; amber as old as the upper Triassic has been found, and amber from the age of dinosaurs is common.

And, of course, the contents of your gas tank are organic molecules that dates to well before Tyrannosaurus.