Quote by PlunkiesNo. Louis
Pasteur demonstrated "that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he
did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series
of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither
Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of
evolution."
Quote by PlunkiesYou just
stated that abiogenesis is impossible? How exactly did you come to this staggering conclusion before all of the
scientists on the entire planet? Those kooky scientists seem to be under the impression that studying abiogenesis
isn't futile at all, but I guess they haven't spoken with you yet huh?
Consider also the question: How did life get started? People have been taught that life came about without any
intervention by God. But this contradicts a well-established scientific principle. At one time it was believed that
beetles came from cow dung, worms from rotten flesh, and mice from mud. Even during the last century, scientists taught
that microorganisms come from lifeless matter. But ideas like these were disproved by Redi, Pasteur, and other
scientists. The World Book Encyclopedia (1990 edition) states: "After
Pasteur's experiments, most biologists accepted the idea that all life comes from existing life."
Nevertheless, scientists theorize that things were different in the distant past. They say that the first one-celled
organisms arose by chance from a lifeless mixture that they call a primeval soup, which contained the chemicals needed
for life. "Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man," declares Christian de Duve in
A Guided Tour of the Living Cell...
Speaking of God, the Bible says: "With you is the source
of life." (Psalm 36:9) This statement is truly in harmony with what has been observed--that life can
only come from preexisting life...
_______________________
Life Comes From Life
From antiquity, the most fanciful ideas had been proposed to explain the appearance of insects, worms, or other
creatures in decomposing matter. For instance, in the 17th century, a Belgian chemist boasted that he had made mice
appear by stuffing a dirty blouse into a jar of wheat!
During Pasteur's time the debate in the scientific community was heated. To confront the proponents of spontaneous
generation was a real challenge. But as a result of what he had learned in his research on fermentation, Pasteur was
confident. So he undertook experiments intended to put an end to the idea of spontaneous generation once and for
all.
His experiment using swan-necked flasks is one of his most famous. A liquid nutrient left in the open air in an
open-topped flask is quickly contaminated by germs. However, when stored in a flask that terminates in a shape like a
swan's neck, the same liquid nutrient remains uncontaminated. Why is this the case?
Pasteur's explanation was simple: On passing through the swan-neck, the bacteria in the air are deposited on the
surface of the glass, so that the air is sterile by the time it reaches the liquid. The germs that develop in an open
flask are not produced spontaneously by the liquid nutrient but are transported in the air...
To show the importance of air as a transporter of microbes, Pasteur went to the Mer de Glace, a glacier in the French
Alps. At an altitude of 6,000 feet, he opened his sealed flasks and exposed them to the air. Out of 20 flasks, only one
became contaminated. He then went to the foot of the Jura Mountains and repeated the same experiment. Here, at the much
lower altitude, eight flasks became contaminated. He thus proved that because of the purer air at higher altitudes,
there was less risk of contamination...
Through such experiments Pasteur demonstrated convincingly that life comes only from previously existing life. It never comes into existence spontaneously, that is, by
itself.
The debate on the spontaneous generation of life, in which Pasteur was involved and in which he came off victorious, was
not just a scientific quibble. It was more than an interesting point for a few scientists or intellectuals to discuss
among themselves. It had much greater significance--it involved evidence that had to do with the existence of
God...
Francois Dagognet, a French philosopher specializing in the sciences, observes that Pasteur's "adversaries,
both materialists and atheists, believed that they could prove that a unicellular organism could result from decomposing
molecules. This allowed them to take God out of creation. However, as far as Pasteur was concerned, there was no
possible passage from death to life."
To this day all the evidence from experimentation, history, biology, archaeology, and anthropology continues to show
what Pasteur demonstrated--that life can come only from preexisting life, not from inanimate matter. And the evidence
also clearly shows that life reproduces "according to its kind," as the Bible's account in Genesis
states. The offspring are always the same "kind," or type, as the parents.--Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25
Thus, knowingly or not, through his work Louis Pasteur provided powerful evidence and testimony against the theory of
evolution and for the absolute necessity of a creator for life to have appeared on earth. His work reflected what the
humble psalmist acknowledged: "Know that Jehovah is God. It is he that has made us, and not we
ourselves."--Psalm 100:3
_____________________
Is Evolution the Intellectual Choice?
From its beginning, notes the book Milestones of History, the evolution theory "appealed to many people because it
seemed more truly scientific than the theory of special creations."
Moreover, the dogmatic statements of some evolutionists can be intimidating. For example, scientist H. S. Shelton
asserts that the concept of special creation is "too foolish for serious consideration." Biologist Richard
Dawkins bluntly states: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant,
stupid or insane." Similarly, Professor Rene Dubos says: "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that
everything in the cosmos--from heavenly bodies to human beings--has developed and continues to develop through
evolutionary processes."
From these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. After
all, to do so would mean that one is "enlightened" rather than "stupid." Yet, there are highly
educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. "I found many scientists with private
doubts," writes Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe, "and a handful who went so far as to say
that Darwinian evolutionary theory had turned out not to be a scientific theory at all."
Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. "There's no evidence
for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution," he says. "It was a social force that took over the world
in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since."
T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. "I found that the situation is quite different
from that which we are led to believe," he says. "The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support
such a complex theory as that of the origin of life."
Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as "ignorant, stupid or
insane." Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to
admit: "It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their
proponents were (and are) profound and able students."
A Matter of Faith
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no
man has seen God...
"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one
that has explained him."--John 1:18
"for we are walking by faith, not by sight."--2 Corinthians 5:7
Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever
witnessed or duplicated...
For example, scientists have never observed mutations--even beneficial ones--that produce new life-forms; yet they are
sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet
they insist that this is how life began...
Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory "a mere 'faith.'" Physicist
Fred Hoyle calls it "the Gospel according to Darwin." Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. "I suspect that
the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist," he says...
Other experts agree. "When I contemplate the nature of man," admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, "the
emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the
Biblical account of his origin."
__________________________
For other MT members:
The Earth--Was It "Founded" by Chance?
To avoid extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems,
planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'--that is,
they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for
human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size...
If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the
earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two
planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if
the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?
Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to
escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the
delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."
Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break
out more frequently. On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the
consequences of an overheated earth...
Quote by PlunkiesFirst of all
xandman isn't an atheist he's just a troll. Second, who are you to talk about morals? All you do is lie and
perpetuate ignorance. And you know as well as I do that the immoral actions of christians, let alone religions in
general, are far worse than anything you could possibly come up with against atheists. Even priests are known as
scumbags now. So you can keep that sanctimonious moral garbage to yourself and stop changing the
subject.
True Christians are very different from others.... as I've said in this thread, Jesus
said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of
the people who practice it. "By their fruits you will recognize them," he said. "Every good
tree produces fine fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be
recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshippers as
a group seek to do God's will...
Quote by PlunkiesDon't
bother threatening an atheist with god and empty bible quotes. That simple minded dreck only scares those that
aren't smart enough to know better. It's like me telling you if you don't believe in unicorns one will
trample you in your sleep.
It's your life... I'm not forcing you to believe, you're the whose responsible for your own salvation...
I'm just helping others, it's up to you, but try to open your mind my friend...
I'll answer some questions after I finish my research... ;)