Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing for the purposes of our conversation, to wit:5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:29 pm No, they're not the same .
All Pasteur did was prove that a sterilized broth would remain sterilized if no outside contaminants were introduced. The predecessor to modern canning methods lol.Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation both describe life arising from non-living matter, but they differ significantly:
- Abiogenesis is a scientific theory proposing that life emerged billions of years ago through gradual, natural processes involving simple organic molecules. It focuses on primitive life forms and is supported by experiments like the Miller-Urey study.
- Spontaneous generation was an outdated belief that complex organisms (e.g., maggots, mice) arose frequently and directly from non-living matter. It was disproven by experiments from Redi and Pasteur.
And Wald was referring to Louis Pasteur's experiment when he said spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible. Just look at your quote.
life arising from non-living matter
The only difference is one hypothetically takes billions of years, the other, basically overnight.
Our debate has been about life arising from non-living matter.
So this difference is irrelevant to our conversation.
As I said, George Wald knew of Miller-Urey when he made his provocative statement.
At the time he said it, "spontaneous generation" and "abiogenesis" were interchangeable.
(though very few ever said "abiogenesis" at the time)
At the time George said it, life on Earth was not thought to be billions of years old.
George lived another 50 years after making that statement (long after 'billions of years' was brought in)
... and he never changed or qualified his stance.
Why?
Read his quote again, there were only two possibilities in his mind, basically: Life from nonlife or God.
And he didn't want to believe in God (despite that being the only possibility of the 2 in his mind).
Hmmm, sounds like someone we know eh Horsey?
