IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 27, 6:08 am, Keima Sente <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote:

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has
been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those
observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory
by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the
predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been
possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no
evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer
was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory
concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory
experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the
theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the
scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to
the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the
conclusion
that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,"
Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that
the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But
what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers:
"Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Does that sound like objective science?

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such
reasoning as
"simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in
fact happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own
minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The
well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided
the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found
itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of
its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could
not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the
primeval past." Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of
life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than
scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the
scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want
to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life
originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the
caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

REPLY: Its utterly impossible. So much so, that even the DNA
Structure Cofounder, atheist Dr. Francis Crick, is quoted as saying
so . The toruble with atheist laymen, is that they must take
everything for granted and given enough time , anything can occur.
And if they dont take it for granted, then they take it apathetically
(same difference really)

Citation?

On Jan 27, 1:58 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:

REPLY: =A0Its utterly impossible. So much so, that even the DNA
Structure Cofounder, atheist Dr. Francis Crick, is quoted as saying
so . =A0The toruble with atheist laymen, is that they must take
everything for granted and given enough time , anything can occur.
And if they dont take it for granted, then they take it apathetically
(same difference really)

Interesting