“So where did you post links to scientific explanations? Scrolling upthread reveals cartoons and a couple links to wikipedia. You surely can’t be referring to wiki links, can you? Seriously?”
Yes - they are a good high level view of the topic.
If you’re interested in learning more, there’s lots of source material links.
I posted the links in response to the challenge that there could be no materialist explanations for abiogenesis.
The really funny thing is that theologians were, for a long time, the biggest proponents of the idea of “spontaneous generation,” such as the idea that worms came from rotting wheat. It took scientists like Pasteur to disprove that concept.
Wikipedia, the notoriously unreliable internet source that allows you to edit articles yourself and then use them to back yourself up on another forum on the internet?
If that’s being passed off as scientific, it’s no wonder there exists the sad state of affairs in public schools in science education and it’s no wonder the general populace doesn’t take *scientists* seriously. How can you when you can’t trust the information in the sources they post?
Some time ago on FR, wiki was used frequently by evos to back up their position until the editing issue came to light. Then, anyone who used it was criticized by the evos. You’re behind times.
Spontaneous generation was the latest in prevailing scientific thought of the day, just as alchemy was at one time. Louis Pasteur was a Christian and Franciscan. So much for theologians being the biggest proponent of spontaneous generation.
I also seem to recall, it was the scientists of the day who laughed at Simmelweis for simply asking doctors to wash their hands between autopsies and delivering babies and this as late as the early 1800’s.
Funny thing is, Jewish law had prescribed hygiene thousands of years before *modern* science had a clue about germs and disease transmission. The *theologians* had the *scientists* beat again.