[_ Old Earth _] A non-Creationists problem with Darwin's hypothesis

[Terry Thone]

For those that are willing to take a look at the scientific validity of evolution there are numerous articles on this site that I find illuminating and challenging. http://evoillusion.org/ This is not a redirect to prove my way of looking at things is the only way. For that I'll point you to this page. http://evoillusion.org/einsteins-thoughts/

I love the quotes from Einstein. To bad he doesn't have half the comprehension of reality that I have. If anyone is interested here's one more for light reading. http://www.reasons.org/ In Him and through Him Terry

 

[Eugene]

.
This thread is reopened for posting; some responses have been edited.
.

 

[Barbarian]

It's ironic how you've proved me correct about spewing jargon to refute a valid point of logic.

I'm just telling you what those two different things are. Would you like me to show you in some detail?

The definition of abiogenisis that you are refuting is directly quoted from dictionary.com.

Using a dictionary for scientific terms is likely to completely mislead you, as it did this time.

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.


The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. Today it is generally accepted to have been decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. He expanded upon the investigations of predecessors (such as Francesco Redi who, in the 17th century, had performed experiments based on the same principles). However, some experimental difficulties were still there and objections from persons holding the traditional views persisted. Many of these residual objections were dealt with by the work of John Tyndall, succeeding the work of Pasteur.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

You see, spontaneous generation was the idea that rotting organic matter could produce complex organisms directly. Abiogenesis is the idea that life was produced from the Earth, not that existing organic matter made life. God is not neutral on this one; He says that life was produced by the Earth and other natural things.

Spontaneous generation poses a bit of a logical problem; "which came first, the rotting material or the living things that would have to exist to make it?"

 

[Terry Thone]

I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I think it sums up everything in a very concise manner. Been good conversing with you Brother Paul. Terry