To: BroJoeK
>Beginning here: “spontaneous” cannot be said of any process taking **billions** of years.
Additionally taking a concept that doesn’t work in 1, 5, 10, 150+ years and saying well think it works when it happens over billions of years isn’t science. It’s just stretching conditions to make it impossible to test. IE, Dogma.
122 posted on
12/01/2017 1:06:11 PM PST by
JohnyBoy
(The GOP Senate is intentionally trying to lose the majority.)
To: JohnyBoy
.
In this case its DogPa! (BroJoeK isn’t a “Ma” :o)
.
124 posted on
12/01/2017 3:07:19 PM PST by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: JohnyBoy
JohnnyBoy:
"Additionally taking a concept that doesnt work in 1, 5, 10, 150+ years and saying well think it works when it happens over billions of years isnt science.
Its just stretching conditions to make it impossible to test. IE, Dogma."Here is an article on the "spontaneous generation" hypothesis which discusses its history and refutation.
"Crucial to this doctrine is the idea that life comes from non-life, with the conditions, and that no causal agent is needed (i.e. Parent).
Such hypothetical processes sometimes are referred to as abiogenesis, in which life routinely emerges from non-living matter on a time scale of anything from minutes to weeks, or perhaps a season or so.
An example would be the supposed seasonal generation of mice and other animals from the mud of the Nile.[8]
Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified without evidence that there ever has been any subsequent repetition of the event."
Note the key words: "no operative principles in common".
130 posted on
12/02/2017 1:58:29 PM PST by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson