Sorry, you are the only one playing semantic games by conflating 1800s "spontaneous generation" with current ideas on abiogenisis.
They are not the same in any way.
Beginning here: "spontaneous" cannot be said of any process taking **billions** of years.
JohnnyBoy: "I spent a year reading up on the subject when I was younger and there’s been nothing new of note since the 70s."
A good many working scientists would beg to differ, and I agree with them.
The entire scientific worldview is very different from 1970.
Again, I recommend the article linked in my post #100 above.
Please read it and then tell me you knew all that in 1970!
>Sorry, you are the only one playing semantic games by conflating 1800s “spontaneous generation” with current ideas on abiogenisis.
They are not the same in any way.
I just quoted you the history that showed that the concepts were the same, it’s the term that was dropped because it was thoroughly debunked by Pasture.
>A good many working scientists would beg to differ, and I agree with them.
And yet not a single reference to any of them shows up in wikipedia. Which means they haven’t produced any results of note, just more wild theories without evidence to support the Dogma.
>Beginning here: “spontaneous” cannot be said of any process taking **billions** of years.
Additionally taking a concept that doesn’t work in 1, 5, 10, 150+ years and saying well think it works when it happens over billions of years isn’t science. It’s just stretching conditions to make it impossible to test. IE, Dogma.