If spontaneous generation does not occur and the principle of biogenesis is true, what scientific question rem?

The most obvious question is ';how did life originate in the first place.'; It's a valid question. Contrary to the creationist propaganda and overall drivel, this is *not* disproof of evolution, and certainly not positive evidence of creation. It's simply a question to be answered.





Right now, the best explanation is the abiogenesis hypothesis. When you look closely enough at a cell, everything it does can be boiled down to a series of complicated chemical reactions. You can strip them away, layer by layer, until you get the most basic reactions required to fuel the cell.





We also know, from the Miller-Urey experiment (among others) that the natural creation of complex organic molecules was possible on the early earth (the experiments didn't show us how exactly it happened, but simply that it was possible). The early earth was a stew of chemical reactions, driven by geological heat. Abiogenesis holds that the first life would have been a simple extension of these early chemical reactions. From there, evolution would have kicked in, gradually bringing life to where it is now.





The key difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is the complexity of life. Spontaneous generation held that complex life would arise from inanimate matter - maggots from meat, for example. Abiogenesis holds that incredibly simple cells arose from inanimate matter (orders of magnitude simpler than modern bacteria, and little different from the chemical reactions in the early ocean). They may sound similar, but there is a *huge* difference between the two.If spontaneous generation does not occur and the principle of biogenesis is true, what scientific question rem?
Pasteur showed experimentally that spontaneous generation did not occur under present-day conditions over his experimental timeframe. So biogenesis is certainly not easy. But there is life on Earth, and at one time there wasn't (this must be true because if you go back far enough, there was a time when there was no Earth).





Moreover, we now have a much greater understanding of the complexity of life as we know it than Pasteur had.





This leaves us with the very interesting question of how life got started on Earth. There are a lot of very good ideas around, and working out what could have happened over tens of millions of years, under conditions very different from those on the Earth today, is an active area of scientific research.





For more on this, see any of the excellent books available on the origin of life, such as Gen-e-Sis by Robert Hazen, or the Wikipedia article on the subject.





BTW, you will find some thoroughly dishonest people who say that our lack of knowledge of the origin of life somehow undermines the whole of modern biology, which embodies the idea of evolution. This is just like saying that our lack of knowledge of the origin of language somehow undermines the whole of comparative linguistics (like Spanish having evolved from Latin, and Latin and old German having evolved from an earlier Indo-European). But that is a completely different kind of question altogether.If spontaneous generation does not occur and the principle of biogenesis is true, what scientific question rem?
Do you mean, for example: ';Can evolution, which is contrary to these observed facts, be true?';





Below are some links that provide good solid support for the truth of science and show the falsity of evolution:





http://www.icr.org/





http://creation.com/





http://www.answersingenesis.org/