JohnnyBoy:
"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."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".
> Note the key words: “no operative principles in common”.
Wow, someone made an assertion? Well, then it must be true!
Oh wait, it’s not.
Abiogenesis doesn’t actually have any operative principles beyond the idea that non-life->magic->life. Its core idea is life came from non-life which is something we’ve never observed in many, many years of scientific observation and experimentation. It doesn’t prescribe how non-life->life happened any more than spontaneous generation prescribed how non-life->life.
It’s a thoery without any evidence to support it beyond a lot of people asserting that it’s true, IE Dogma. The flim-flam about takes a long time, super special conditions, yadda yadda yadda is just designed to make the theory untestable but still allow idiots to continue spouting it as dogma.