SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + +
→Citation needed
Can someone add a citation for the claim it is now discredited, or I shall removed it. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
Can someone add a citation for the claim it is now discredited, or I shall removed it. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
:Sorry, but that is in a quotation, and the cited article really does say that. There's no law against the internet having wrong or stupid things.
:The article does sort of have a point. Abiogenesis used to be taken to mean things like maggots spontaneously arising from rotting meat. People, in their zeal to grasp at anything that could touch on the question of were living things come from, used to believe stuff like that. It was the experiments of Louis Pasteur, among others, that caused that theory to be "discredited". In the current era, abiogenesis accepts evolution and all the things that are known about life at present, and tries to deal with the more cosmic question of how it really began. Either there were living things through infinite time in the past, or there must have been some kind of abiogenesis. It's very unlikely that there were living things lurking in the primordial quark-gluon plasma of the big bang.
:Alas, this gives creationists an opportunity to take advantage of the potential confusion about the meaning of abiogenesis, and imply that discrediting of the 19<sup>th</sup> century version of the theory must mean that modern cosmology could not have happened.
:I think the best we can do is point out that the dictionary.com definition is referring to a somewhat outdated definition from the 19<sup>th</sup> century.
:It's a never-ending battle, isn't it? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:41, 24 September 2016 (EDT)