Oh have you researched the evolutionist movement much? It always comes down to that. Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution. Like I said, we cut to the chase.
All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means. It comes down to a choice - the stuff is preexistent and impersonal, which leaves you with the question of how life and intellect and morality arose from it (since spontaneous generation has been disproven... or are we to suggest that we need to reexamine that theory?). OR there is a transcendent power which brought it into existence. Once you have decided for one or the other, you will by faith (be you creationist or evolutionist) fit everything to support that one presupposition. The thing is, the creationist's puzzle pieces fit much better and leave less room for faith than do the evos. Yet they insist the opposite. How can there be any meeting of minds when one party insists black is white and white is black?
Why? Are you suggesting we can't know anything unless we know its entire history? If I steal your wallet, will you be unable to prove it's theft unless you can tell me where each bill was minted?
Because we know mice don't come spontaneously from dirty blankets, that does not rule an abiogenetic origin of single celled organisms over a long time and very different conditions from the earth we live in today.
Oh have you researched the evolutionist movement much?
If twenty five years counts as "much", then yes, I have.
It always comes down to that.
No, it does not "always" come down to that. Please try to reign in your penchant for overgeneralization.
Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution.
Nonsense. Feel free to provide an example which you think exhibits this, and let's see just how fair and accurate your grasp is of these discussions.
Like I said, we cut to the chase.
No, you keep cutting to one thing *you* think is More Important than any other. That doesn't make it "the chase", especially when people explain to you why they think it's less relevant to other topics than you apparently believe.
All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means.
Ahem. A moment ago you faulted people for allegedly "Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution". And yet, aren't you now setting up your *own* litmus test for what shall be considered moot or not? How is that any different than the accusation you just made?
It comes down to a choice - the stuff is preexistent and impersonal, which leaves you with the question of how life and intellect and morality arose from it (since spontaneous generation has been disproven... or are we to suggest that we need to reexamine that theory?).
No, spontaneous generation doesn't need to be reexamined, but you're trying to apply it improperly. Spontaneous generation was *only* the old notion that complex life could spring forth in a matter of hours or days out of non-living material (i.e., people used to believe that mice sprang fully formed out of rotting grain, flies from dead meat, etc.) That was indeed disproven. But that in no way applies to the question of whether simple chemical replicators can arise from non-replicating chemicals given enough time and material, or whether things like thought or morality can arise through progressive changes.
OR there is a transcendent power which brought it into existence.
False dichotomy -- there are many other options (and variations on the two you mention). Some more plausible than others, granted, but it's an error to declare that there are only two possibilities, and that they are exactly as you describe them.
Once you have decided for one or the other, you will by faith (be you creationist or evolutionist) fit everything to support that one presupposition.
I'll let you speak for the creationists, but no, evolutionists are quite open to evidence and arguments which challenge their current views.
They're not, however, so open that they'll swallow just anything. If you've had a hard time changing their minds, perhaps its the quality of your material and not their intransigence.
The thing is, the creationist's puzzle pieces fit much better and leave less room for faith than do the evos.
So they believe.
Yet they insist the opposite.
Yes, and for good reason. Perhaps I can claim some perspective on this, since I've been on both sides. I started life as a creationist, but over time my beliefs changed because, quite frankly, the "puzzle pieces fit much better" from an evolutionary standpoint.
If you have a few minutes, please read this post from the talk.origins newsgroup. It describes the situation rather well.
How can there be any meeting of minds when one party insists black is white and white is black?
Good question. Perhaps a good start would be to listen with respect to each other, instead of, oh, making multiple posts of sarcastic broadsides, for example.
It's an active area of research. There is, for example, the RNA world hypothesis, which you can easily research online if you're interested.
PS what Pasteur showed was that modern-day bacteria, yeasts, etc. do not form in sterile chicken broth, juice, etc. (the basis of canning), in a few months or years. His discovery says absolutely nothing about the chemical processes in the early atmosphere an hydrosphere, where the chemical conditions were quite different, and there was much more time.. (No-one is proposing that primoridial soup is chicken broth!)
