Where and when did I publish an untrue statement.
Don't have to scroll up very far at all.
No-one other than Creatioists have ever claimed spontanious life. Once again this is a Creationist POV.
In an overly simplistic nutshell, evolutionary theory states that life started at Point A, and from that point, enviromental and other stimuli directed the differences that would branch from that point of origin.
Evolutionists always have and always will believe in and promote belief in spontaneous generation. That's a very straightforward, universally-known fact. (Yes, we know they changed the name to hide it.)
Some creationists may have fallen for it, but it is contrary to the teaching of scripture. Therefore such beliefs were not derived from accurate history, or God, but obtained from men.
Gen. 2: 3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Ex 20: 11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Creationists believe that God created life from nothing. Yes?
Some may; I haven't seen 'em claim it. It doesn't matter.
Ergo the belief in spontaniuos life IS a Creationist POV.
This is a laughable attempt at equivocation.
You employ an novel definition of 'spontaneous'. Is it your own creation? The antihistory itself is probably not yours. We've seen similar junk before. Here's a post I made in response to a previous attempt.
Pasteur refuting special creation? That's piece of antihistory won't be voted "the most likely-to-succeed".
Huxley's different. This was a double-talk issue for him. In order to appear scientific, he'd acknowledge the law of biogenesis. But he also pushed Bathebius haeckelii.. He was no stranger to self-contradiction.
Now the dates couldn't be worse for the Huxley apologist, here. His "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" lecture (one source) was given in 1870. In 1868 he had named the "Bathybius" and the search for this substance continued until 1872. He was on both sides of the issue, no two ways about it. It's a simple trick he borrowed from politicians, and he employed it quite a bit.
Follow the dot link & see. Not new, not clever, not true, not even plausible.
So much for the antihistory itself. Now for the term you abuse.http://www.answers.c...pic/spontaneous
1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.
4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.
Now from the context of the discussion, it's clear which applies.
From the context you employ surrounding the term, it is clear that you mean "God-caused". That's pretty ridiculous. More specifically, you mean that events caused by imaginary entities can legitimately be classified as 'spontaneous'. Or would you classify God as real? That wouldn't help, as it results in the exact opposite
of the definition of 'spontaneous' given by the dictionary.
Anyhow, if your definition of 'spontaneous' were being employed in science, it wouldn't matter what the dictionary said.
The above link provides a few examples of the term's employment
avian s. cardiomyopathy
s. internal hemorrhage
s. pulmonary arteriopathy
s. regression Ã¢â‚¬â€ when diseases resolve themselves without outside assistance.
s. virus encephalitis
s. bacterial peritonitis
Do the authors who employ these terms intend us to believe God is the cause of all these things?
Saving the best of the lot for last,http://www.biology-o...atural_mutation
natural mutation --> spontaneous mutation
A mutation which occurs by itself without first being affected by a mutagen, for example during the process of dNA replication. Spontaneous mutations arise at a remarkably constant rate. The rate that spontaneous mutations arise has been used as an evolutionary clock to estimate how closely related two (or more) separate species are to each other.
If "God-caused" is the correct definition of 'spontaneous', the "scientific community" is a lot more inclined to acknowledge the creator than we've been led to believe. They use the word frequently. Why don't you listen to them?
I'm not disrespecting that POV, as your beliefs are your own, and I applaud that faith and belief.
You applaud it, so long as you are allowed to misportray it. We don't believe in spontaneous generation any more than we believe in the flat earth junk.
Oh, that's right - you've tried to associate us with that stuff too. I forgot.
As part of my research, I recently came across another group, who not only believe in YEC, but as they claim to be Bible literalists, they also believe that the Earth is flat as Scripture does not (according to this group) support the concept of a Spheroid Earth in the same way that the Scripture does not support evolution..
Now, not being up on my Bible as I once was (believe it or not I once considered entering the priesthood), I was wondering if anyone could furnish me with any passages from Scripture which would lead these people to believe that the Earth is flat.
I was also wondering if any YEC believers on this board were also believers of a flat Earth, and if so, why?
If you're inclined to "applaud" the beliefs held by actual people, and "respect" them, perhaps you should consider what people actually say rather than what you'd prefer to hear.
My views and opinions may contradict your 'truth', but that doesn't make my views or opinions any less legitimate.
To be perfectly frank with you CTD, you have to learn that an opposing POV is not always an attack on your POV, and to think otherwise borders on paranoia mate.
To be perfectly frank, I don't care how many "pleases" and "thank-yous" you offer with your slander. I don't care if you show up with flowers & candy wearing your best new shoes either. You claim creationists believe in spontaneous generation of life, and this is untrue.
Guess what? If a bandit shows up at my house, bows & scrapes, flatters everyone present, says his thank-yous and even says "pretty please with sugar on top", he's not waltzing out the door with my valuables. Does that come as a surprise? I wonder why...
How about if I offer a little flattery, a little more, accuse Scotsmen of wearing skirts, tell you how astute you are, tell you how much I respect people who live on islands, call your womenfolk ugly, and wish you a good weekend? What do you think of that formula?
Oh, I forgot: double standards mean it's fine for you, but wrong for me...