Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Esquilax]

Louis Pasteur is popularly known as the "father of microbiology". He is responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of theFrench Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganism could grow.

Spontaneous generation is not the same thing as abiogenesis. See, this is the problem; you complain that a lot of us are just attacking your beliefs, but then you turn around and spew what basically amounts to the uninformed creationist laymen's laziest hits collection. Literally the least factually accurate arguments they have.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, the idea that life spontaneously appears, but that's not what abiogenesis hypothesizes will happen. In abiogenesis, a series of chemical reactions, over time and in an environment very different to modern day earth, can give rise to simple life. We even have experimental results confirming this as possible; the Miller-Yurey experiments and John Oro's work demonstrates that in certain conditions the building blocks of life form naturally. It's not spontaneous or magic, it's simple chemical reactions in accordance with the laws of physics. Unfortunately for your argument, Pasteur has long been left behind.

Now, you asserted again in another post that we have no evidence of evolution between species, but you apparently ignored my last post to do it, where I pointed out exactly where we do have that evidence. We have plenty of evidence of ungulates evolving into whales, the evolution of fish to tetrapods, and so on. Just do a google search for Tiktaalik Rosae. Bam; your argument is done. Easy.