Re: A Poll On Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation)

Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:52:51 -0400

Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Your argument is with the Encyclopaedia Britannica, not me. The text
> was their text, not mine. If you object, present your case to them and,
> if you can, make them change it.
>
> Please do not speak for everyone else. Speak for yourself.
>
> 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 This is the Encyclopaedia Britannicaâs
> entry under Spontaneous Generation.
>
> "I subscribe to abiogenesis (spontaneous generation)," as defined above,
> was the statement.
>
> I shall take you off the affirmative list and put you on the negative
> list. Please correct if that was not what you meant in your last
> message.
>
> Joseph Mastropaolo

Joe, do you think this little semantic shell game is fooling anyone? As
has been explained to you, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are
two distinct ideas. The disctinction has been explained to you, but
rather than responding to the substance of that distinction, you just
keep saying, "That's what the encyclopedia says". If the encycolopedia
brittanica says that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same
thing, then the encyclopedia brittanica is wrong, plain and simple. At
this point, one can only assume that the reason you continue to conflate
the two is that you are either A) incredibly dense; B) dishonest; or C)
playing games for some unknown reason. Quite frankly, you are making a
fool of yourself.

Ed Brayton