You're continually coming across very much as a rhetorician rather than a
scientist. You're too equivocal (defining -evolutionary- "abiogensis" as a
synonym for Pasteur's disproven "spontaneous generation") to be trying to
explain or persuade; are you just trying to annoy now?
Is there anything cogent you're -really- getting at with this mock poll?
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph
> Mastropaolo
> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 1998 2:24 PM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: A Poll On Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation)
>
>
> To the Evolution Mailing List:
>
> The basic assumption of evolution is spontaneous generation.
>
> ãSpontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now disproved, that
> living organisms sometimes arise from nonliving matter. It is sometimes
> referred to as abiogenesis, as opposed to biogenesis, the now
> established fact living organisms arise only from the reproduction of
> previously existing organisms.ä
>
> Above is the Encyclopaedia Britannicaâs entry under Spontaneous
> Generation. It is also the experience of about 5 billion people many
> billions of times currently and since the beginning of recorded history,
> without one single exception. The box score for biogenesis versus
> abiogenesis is many billions to zero.
>
> Please send me a "Yes" or a "No" to the statement:
>
> I subscribe to abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).
>
> Thank you for your help with this survey.
>
> Joseph Mastropaolo
>
>