Pasteur and spontaneous generation

[rmwilliamsll]

this thread is prompted by:

posted by withreason:
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31014989&postcount=263

which works in particular have you read that you recommend? afai can see looking at his list of works at the library, most is only in French.
the only works i see are a study in fermentation and a collection of letters.

thanks for the recommendation. i just need a bit more to go on. most people don't read much of the historical works so when i run across someone knowledgable on a first hand basis with them, i'd like to follow up.

within his fermentation expieraments there were some discoveries concerning spontanious generation.
pasteur proved that spontanious generation is impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_...ous_generation

i am aware of his work. what i am not aware of is where to start in the original literature written by him. the only book that i can find close to the topic is:
Location Science-Engineering Library
Call # 589.236 P29e tF2
Author Pasteur, Louis, 1822-1895.
Title Studies on fermentation. The diseases of beer, their causes, and the means of preventing them

is this the one that you read then? which book are you recommending with: "I think it is worth the investment of time!"
i can google websites, what i can not do is determine the quality of a book without scanning or reading it, that is why i need to rely on recommendations such as yours.

one of the very best things about the net and the way these forums bring together affinity groups is that i don't have to read so much garbage but can get recommendations from people who have been there.

i hope withreason comes and shares research on spontaneous generation here. i'll get the book on fermentation tomorrow if it is the right one. Reading original works is a dying art and i appreciate people who, like me, do their homework.

thanks.

notes:
this was posted after i started this thread

again...it is like you to make such a reply, when anyone interested in finding all the information that is available to broaden ones understanding, people like you are present with remarks like that.
of course, evolutionists claim his work to be out dated, but one still needs to review his work to gain understanding of it.
again....it is always the same...with you...

good, can we review his work then?
first, is this the right book, the one i found on fermentation?
second, i don't believe that good science like good literature ever gets outdated, so where do we start?

 

[Deamiter]

Oh noes! Somebody challenged mswilliamsll to a literature review?!?

 

[Gwenyfur]

*gets some popcorn and settles in*

 

[Assyrian]

Mind if I pull up a chair?

 

[shernren]

I'm predicting that nobody but rmwilliamsll is going to read the original, whereupon the thread will degenerate into the usual PRATTs, ad homs, equivocations, and insults. Wake me up when that happens.

 

[busterdog]

I am not clear on the issues in the OP. Is there a suggestion that abiogenesis is possible without God?

It would seem to me that abiogenesis is an issue where YEC and TE largely agree, but that it is the model of what happens subsequently that is at issue.

That is, while YEC does not teach man comes from primordial soup, don't we all agree that for primordial soup to become something like life, that God must intervene? YEC would I guess agree that viruses or bacteria or something like that could come from primoridal soup if goddidit and that TE would agree.

Pasteur I think was teaching the common sense conclusion that no one really ever sees the spontaneous generation of life out of non-life and that it would be extremely unlikely in any event.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Pasteur I think was teaching the common sense conclusion that no one really ever sees the spontaneous generation of life out of non-life and that it would be extremely unlikely in any event.

that is what we are waiting for. "Withreason" has studied Pasteur and can lead us through his research on spontaneous generation.

i'd like to look at Pasteur's writings and see what he actually said about SG, not what other people have said that he says. but i only have access to the one book on beer fementation, and i'm not sure it is among the ones "withreason" is referring to.

notes:
i PM'ed him about this thread.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not clear on the issues in the OP. Is there a suggestion that abiogenesis is possible without God?

An excellent question Busterdog. I would say as a TE that the universe is not possible without God. Whether abiogenesis is possible in the universe depends on just how good a universe God created.

Now an inorganic universe of stars an galaxies is an amazing creation. But a universe where the stars can produce tetravalent carbon atoms with just the right energy levels in their electron shells, capable of forming complex self replicating molecules that the laws of mathematics can sift and select as they combine with other molecules, to form the most primitive reproducing cells. Now such a universe is an utterly amazing creation.

Anyway, that is a topic for another discussion.
Care for some popcorn?

 

[busterdog]

An excellent question Busterdog. I would say as a TE that the universe is not possible without God. Whether abiogenesis is possible in the universe depends on just how good a universe God created.

Now an inorganic universe of stars an galaxies is an amazing creation. But a universe where the stars can produce tetravalent carbon atoms with just the right energy levels in their electron shells, capable of forming complex self replicating molecules that the laws of mathematics can sift and select as they combine with other molecules, to form the most primitive reproducing cells. Now such a universe is an utterly amazing creation.

Anyway, that is a topic for another discussion.
Care for some popcorn?

Fair enough. Certainly we now see equivalently wonders as the universe unwinds. Whether in six days or 15 billion I don't know that there is a practical distinction in the degree of how mind-blowing the whole deal is.

It sounds to me like the TE answer is you are not sure yet.

I would venture to guess that you are not suggesting that there isn't divine intervention along the way (healing, armies defeated, etc.), but the question is whether science tells you it is "unwinding" or contemporaneous intervention. A universe that merely unwinds without intervention is a deist idea, but probably not a modern TE idea. Am I right?

 

[Gwenyfur]

looks like we'll be needing a lotta this

 

[Assyrian]

Busterdog: That is pretty much it.

Gwenyfur: Yay!

 

[theFijian]

Popcorn: butter or salt?

 

[shernren]

Shhh! I want to watch the show!

 

[Assyrian]

qwenyfur has butter popcorn... but i think i saw busterdog with salt...

 

[Deamiter]

I'd clarify that to me at least, a universe that CAN unwind without divine intervention is the most amazing and praiseworthy I can imagine. It's made even more so by the fact that while the universe appears to be able to run just fine without constant tweaking, God chooses to interact with us directly showing us directly his love and asking only for a loving relationship in return!

I can sympathize strongly with deists as I think they understand the nature of the universe perfectly. That they miss the ongoing loving relationship with God is a tragedy though.

 

[shernren]

Popcorn's getting cold and the coke's going dry.

 

[Assyrian]

The llama ate mine.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"withreason" knows about the thread and why i started it. It doesn't appear that he wants to guide us through the literature by Pasteur to demonstrate what Pasteur did to show that spontaneous generation was impossible.

and we need to do that literature review before we can talk about the relationship of spontaneous generation in the 19thC and abiogenesis in the 21st.

i sent another PM to him:

hi withreason

i started a thread at:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31142348#post31142348

to discuss with you the statement you made:

To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

in: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31142348#post31142348

the literature is unknown to me and i'm willing to follow your research into Pasteur and to see exactly what he taught about spontaneous generation. however it is a bit much without a guide, especially since i don't read French.

thanks for your potential help

and confirming that i did send another one on Tuesday when i started this thread to accept his offer of studying Pasteur.

Pasteur

Hi withreason,

could you come to:
http://www.christianforums.com/showt...3#post31039253
and share your reading of Pasteur with us please?

it is a lot of literature just to scan looking for a topic like spontaneous generation, i really could use the help from someone who has studied the issues.

thanks

i hope he just overlooked me accepting his offer to study Pasteur.
he may be right that Pasteur is worth this study time but i really don't want to spend another day on research for online discussions here that isn't a bit more useful than some of the past ones. (i spent a week on phenotypic plasticity in a discussion with supersport, another time a day on fur coloring genes in mammals) One of my New Year's resolutions is to get more out of the time i spend here.

 

[shernren]

Is it productive to take withreason more seriously than withreason takes himself?

This is a very strange facet of the cr-evo debate, evolutionists often take creationist ideas more seriously and thoroughly than creationists do their own. We're having a discussion over at the "Shift over Red Shift" thread about Bridgman's treatment of Setterfield's cDK theory, and I get every impression that Bridgman is far more serious about cDK than Setterfield himself is.

Ah well. It's time to pull out a Galileo quote:

Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously demonstrated-and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false. This seems very reasonable and natural, for those who believe an argument to be false may much more easily find the fallacies in it than men who consider it to be true and conclusive.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

 

[withreason]

"withreason" knows about the thread and why i started it. It doesn't appear that he wants to guide us through the literature by Pasteur to demonstrate what Pasteur did to show that spontaneous generation was impossible.

and we need to do that literature review before we can talk about the relationship of spontaneous generation in the 19thC and abiogenesis in the 21st.

i sent another PM to him:


and confirming that i did send another one on Tuesday when i started this thread to accept his offer of studying Pasteur.



i hope he just overlooked me accepting his offer to study Pasteur.
he may be right that Pasteur is worth this study time but i really don't want to spend another day on research for online discussions here that isn't a bit more useful than some of the past ones. (i spent a week on phenotypic plasticity in a discussion with supersport, another time a day on fur coloring genes in mammals) One of my New Year's resolutions is to get more out of the time i spend here.

I think you could clearly see that I was previously engaged, the information available for your own interest is at your fingertips! what your post is refering to is ridicule...which seems to be the norm of rebutal in this forum.....I shall further explain what I meant in regard to the post that generated my comment of Pasture...
Darwinian evolution does not explain the first oginisms that arose by “chance” in the so called “primordial soup”. Spontaneous generation is the only explanation. Louis Pasteur; disproved the fallacy of “spontaneous generation” in 1859 the French academy of science sponsored an attempt to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation. Pasteur filled a long necked flask with meat broth. He then heated the glass neck and bent it into an "S" shape. Air could reach the broth, but gravity acted to trap airborne microorganisms in the curve of the neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no microorganisms had formed in the broth. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation, Abiogenesis.
Even though Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published. From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement. Yet…..this theory does not explain the first development of micro organisms that are needed for the evolutionary process to have a foundation for development.
And Behe’s work with IC, goes further to exemplify the need for evolutionary theory to produce viable reasoning to explain the origins of the first cell, not to mention the DNA hurdles ….
as for thr recent work in the 21 century you mentioned, I do believe there were two basic amino's that were produced from questionable "enviornmental relationships" in natural evlotionary conditions, the electrical enducement was based on "theory" and the amino's that were produced are toxic to development by mutation.....they were duds!!