Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK

So explain to me exactly how time or randomness changes things. There is no energy or organization in time. Lets me at least a little honest in argument. Time is meaningless as is randomness. At least argue it is something within that time, that cause the event.

So there is no spontaneous event, It only LOOKS like a spontaneous event. THE EVIDENCE AS YOU STATED looks and acts like a spontaneous event but YOU REFUSE TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU. You deny the evidence, what science is that?


223 posted on 06/22/2018 7:07:44 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]


To: PeterPrinciple
PeterPrinciple: "So explain to me exactly how time or randomness changes things."

Sorry, I don't "get" what your problem is with time.
Time is required for every chemical reaction, and if your reaction chamber is the entire Earth, then much more time is required for the products of one reaction to react to the products of some others.
Why, exactly, is that a problem for you?

PeterPrinciple: "There is no energy or organization in time."

Maybe, but there are energy sources which produce reactions in time -- the Sun, molten lava, lightning strikes, plate tectonics, storms, etc., etc.
Why exactly can't you see that?

PeterPrinciple: "Lets me at least a little honest in argument.
Time is meaningless as is randomness.
At least argue it is something within that time, that cause the event."

Is that then your straw man -- the argument you're attempting to foist on me?
You want me to claim that time alone produces chemical reactions so you can proudly announce: no, it's not just time, it's also other factors?
And for good measure you throw in "randomness" wishing me to argue that "randomness" and "time" alone produce reactions?
Why?

PeterPrinciple: "So there is no spontaneous event, It only LOOKS like a spontaneous event. "

Now for several posts I've repeatedly argued there's nothing "spontaneous" about abiogenesis, but you totally ignore what I said, so powerful is your wish to claim I'm defending "spontaneous generation", right?

PeterPrinciple: "THE EVIDENCE AS YOU STATED looks and acts like a spontaneous event but YOU REFUSE TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU.
You deny the evidence, what science is that?"

Sorry, but there's no evidence -- none, zero, nada, zip evidence -- not a shred of confirmed evidence for what was called "spontaneous generation".
By contrast there are literal mountains of evidence confirming evolution theory.

227 posted on 06/23/2018 5:43:05 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson