geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.
His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.
Why would it be? Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation, which is now seen to be as laughable as believing the Earth is the center of the Universe.
What he did not do was establish Intelligent Design or weigh in on the origins of life in this world.
It was a simple (but important experiment) with straight forwards conclusions. MDR is making claims about Pasteur's work that simply aren't there.
In fairness to Pasteur, at that time mankind was only beginning to understand simple genetic inheritance. We had no understanding of amino acids or nucleotides. There is no way Pasteur could have commented on "The RNA Word" with his work.
In a similar vein, Darwin's proposed mechanism for genetic inheritance was completely goofy. Scientists do the best that they can with the knowledge of he world they have at the time.
Therefore, for MDR to claim that Pasteur's work has any implications for the current debate of abiogenesis is either completely ignorant or just patently dishonest.