Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Have there been any experiments since then to make his observation obsolete?
As far as Darwin is concerned, he had misgivings about it, allowing for theism in his Origin of Species, admitting laws as being "impressed on matter by the Creator" and that biotic powers were "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."
"You are wise to accept the findings of science, and not to let it interfere with your faith."
Thanks much and there is no reason science should interfere with anyone's faith.
"You are wise to accept the findings of science, and not to let it interfere with your faith."
Thanks much and there is no reason science should interfere with anyone's faith.
"welcome to FR."
Thank you.
"Spontaneous generation" as Pasteur defined it was known species (flies, mice, etc.) suddenly within a short time frame popping into existence on appropriate substrate. Some of Pasteur's original experimental apparatuses remain at the Pasteur Institute where they still have not spontaneously produced modern bacteria. I believe it is universally accepted that such a thing does not occur.
All of this says nothing about the possibility of abiogenesis as we would define it, being a completely different creature. Using Pasteur's experiments to forbid prebiotic evolution and abiogenesis would be like stubbornly continuing to be puzzled by the massive heat output of the sun--we now know that the heat is due to fusion, which no one before 1920 would have dreamed about.
I find this statement to be vaguely racist in nature.
I am not aware of anybody making claims of such a sort since I joined the thread.
You want abiogenesis?
If you think Pasteur's experiments are irrelevant to the origin of life, why are we discussing them? *scratches head*
He, he. Because the claim that life only comes from life was attributed to Darwin.
I guess we can't be expected to read the entire thread!
It's hard to when it's been so gutted by various deletions.
Since we all seem to agree Pasteur's experiments are irrelevant to the origin of life, I trust we can move on! Until the next time someone tries to make this claim. :-D
Brother in pondscum placemarker. LOL
The Pasteur thing was a red herring, a tactic not prohibited by the site. Calling attention to plagiarism or manufactured quotations apparently is grounds for having your posts pulled.
What's next?
"Thanks for sharing" is a polite way of saying "kiss off". Don't thank me for sharing my concerns. Talk to some of your friends about painting people with a broad bush. If someone says something like "evolutionists believe the Lord is a liar" take the time to explain to them that while you share their view of Creation there are ample number of devout folks who don't deserve to be thusly smeared. If someone says something like "you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution" tell them that there are people of good will who disagree. When someone such as yourself desires to cultivate a reputation for fair-mindedness, such a person could do no less.
It appears to me you can say anything you want so long as you phrase it in the third person.
Thanks, Sherlock, now you've blown it for the rest of us!
;^)
There is such a thing as a person having the opinion that another unnamed person is an ass, but one would never express such an opinion in the polite presence of polite people while they are discussing lofty matters of monkeys and music.
Donno. The rules are different here. Not just the behavior rules, which don't trouble me as long as they're applied even-handedly, but the intellectual rules seem to be different here. I prefer the tradition of having science news threads in the news forum -- where they belong. I suspect that the religion mod would like that too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.