BroJoeK: "I'll say again, your basic problem is, you don't actually know ANY real science. That's why I recommend you read the Scott book -- it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn't say.
schef21: "How could you possibly know this to be true? You spend a lot of time in these posts refuting things I never said and putting words in my mouth. I am very well read on the subject of science and will gladly have a rational discussion with you on any area that you choose."
I say you are ignorant, because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you truly know as much about science as you claim, then you have to be lying, and I was hoping not to falsely accuse you.
Here's what Wikipedia says about the The Law of Biogenesis:
"Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."
Note the precise language: "MODERN ORGANISMS do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."
But modern scientific hypotheses regarding the Origins of Life do NOT claim MODERN life "popped" spontaneously out of Darwin's mud puddles.
Instead, they say that life slowly, slowly, slowly, step by step by step by step developed over long, long, long periods of time -- as utterly lifeless organic chemicals combined and recombined and recombined until some of them began to behave in ways that seem to us somewhat lifelike, but not really.
These very very simple chemical combinations could form a membrane, ingest other chemicals, and even reproduce. They were not alive, but at this point natural selection could take over, and those which performed all the life-like functions the best would survive and reproduce the most. And of course, those which did not would become food for the others.
Scientists have been working for many years now to demonstrate exactly how all this might have happened. My guess is, eventually they'll come of with detailed scenarios that can be demonstrated in a lab.
Sorry BroJoe...there is one last thing...I somehow missed this post of yours, so I’ll go ahead and respond to it.
First of all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source...anybody can go in and change anything they want....for these purposes I’ll treat it as if it were reliable.
Again....the liar stuff.
Here’s my rebuttal....
****Note the precise language: “MODERN ORGANISMS do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.”****
So where is the evidence that it did in the distant past? I’ll save you the time.....it’s not evidence, it’s worldview. It goes something like this:
“Since we know that evolution is true, then at at some point in the distant past there had to have been an abiogenesis event.” I’ve referred to this before as circular reasoning. If you believe in a Creator, there is no need to posit this at all.
I’m actually a bit surprised at you. You’ve said you’re a theistic evolutionist...to be one you must believe that God had a role in it somewhere, otherwise you couldn’t be a theistic evolutionist.
****But modern scientific hypotheses regarding the Origins of Life do NOT claim MODERN life “popped” spontaneously out of Darwin’s mud puddles.****
I’ve given you the names of 4 textbooks that say that. Without a Creator, life had to come from non-life. Make whatever argument you want...it defies the law of biogenesis. To be a law there can be no known instances that it was violated.
****Scientists have been working for many years now to demonstrate exactly how all this might have happened. My guess is, eventually they’ll come of with detailed scenarios that can be demonstrated in a lab.****
This statement, BroJoe, is a statement of faith. Congratulations, we are both coming at this from a faith perspective.