Replies

You said:
Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis.

I said:
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I think I should expand on that cry of anguish.

What you called "Darwin's presupposition," that "his very theory is built on" which is supposed to be "omne vivum ex vivo" and "which IS the Law of Biogenesis" is actually not his presupposition. Nor is it what his theory is built on.

Darwin never said "omne vivum ex vivo," either in Latin or in English. Betty Boop said it, and in post 299 of a different thread she explained that it came -- not from Darwin -- but from someone named Yockey. In that post, BB also said:

Of Darwin's view of the matter, Yockey writes: "[Darwin] believed that life appeared by some wholly unknown process, and therefore [its origin] is undecideable."
[snip]
Darwin essentially takes the "origin" or "essence" of life for granted. He is saying his scientific theory is independent of it; which is a very good thing, because it is "undecideable" or "unknowable" anyway.

That's a fair statement of Darwin's position. But it's very far indeed from "omne vivum ex vivo." Yokey doesn't attribute the concept of "omne vivum ex vivo" to Darwin, nor does he attribute those words to Darwin. Nor should you (in my always humble opinion).

That said, it's clear -- at least to me -- that "omne vivum ex vivo" isn't, as you stated "Darwin's presupposition," nor is it the case that Darwin's "very theory is built on 'omne vivum ex vivo' "

One further point. The "Law of Biogenesis" is not a law recognized by biologists. It appears primarily in the literature of creation "science," and as far as I know it has no scientific standing at all. I suspect that if you took a poll of biologists, it would show that most of them believe that life does indeed originate from non-living material, but in some way not yet discovered. This is, of course, the exact opposite of "omne vivum ex vivo."

So before you incorporate that erroneous tidbit into your superb archives of scientific information, from which it might appear in future threads, I hope you will reconsider the accuracy of that statement.