Log in

View Full Version : is there a difference?


dacdac
04-09-2007, 19:28
no one has been able to answer my question without sounding like a complete moron, so lets see if someone here can try to sound intelligent.
What is the difference between spontaneous generation and creationism?
HoreTore
04-09-2007, 19:42
Well, spontaneous generation refers to living organisms spring out of decaying organic matter. Creationism is a belief that everything was created by a divine being or two.

Not sure what your point is here...
dacdac
04-09-2007, 22:36
my biology teacher said that spontaneous generation was the forming of life from nothing. that matter could just appear without having a true origin.was she just downright wrong?
Marshal Murat
04-09-2007, 22:41
If she defined it as such, then yes she is correct.
Spontaneous Generation is where 'maggots appear on meat' when there is a dead cattle. The thought was that maggots spontaneously occurred on the meat, evolved into flies, and then consumed the meat.

This was thrown out when an Italian scientist (maybe he was French?) put a piece of meat under a glass bowl, and after ten days, there were no maggots.

Creationism is different. It's larger, more like evolution but religious.
KukriKhan
04-09-2007, 22:56
A pair of Italians (Redi & Spallanzini) and a Frenchman (Pasteur), are fellas you're looking for, for disproving SponGen (life arising from non-animate matter; frogs from mud, etc).

One can see the confusion though, given the 'god made man from clay' bit of Genesis; if the creator did it once, it could happen again, it was thought (for a couple thousand years or so).
TevashSzat
04-10-2007, 01:32
Spontaneous generation is without sentient involvement while creationism is
Ja'chyra
04-11-2007, 15:13
Is spontaneous generation even possible?

Lol, maybe that's why they're both the same :smash:
lars573
04-12-2007, 04:16
A pair of Italians (Redi & Spallanzini) and a Frenchman (Pasteur), are fellas you're looking for, for disproving SponGen (life arising from non-animate matter; frogs from mud, etc).

One can see the confusion though, given the 'god made man from clay' bit of Genesis; if the creator did it once, it could happen again, it was thought (for a couple thousand years or so).
Ambiogenesis as a theory was developed Aristotle. Who would have (probably) known nothing of the book of Genesis. It came back into fashion during the renaissance. Until it was disproved.