Replies

PeterPrinciple: “Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS.”

I have shown you again and again, the common definition of spontanatious generation and abiogenesis are the same. Address that issue.

I have asked what time and randomness bring into the equation. Address the issue. Counter my argument with science.

I have even tried to lead you to the answer, it is some event that brings in energy and organization. BUT NOT TIME.

TIME AND RANDOMNESS BRING NOTHING TO THE EQUATION. They distract you from true science.

At least the article brings some evidence and a good questions. But you go right to time and randomness because you don’t like the evidence.

PeterPrinciple: "Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS."

That was ridiculous nonsense the first time you posted it and remains so regardless of how often you repeat it, FRiend.

PeterPrinciple: "I have shown you again and again, the common definition of spontanatious generation and abiogenesis are the same.
Address that issue."

And I have shown you again and again that your opinion on this is ridiculously false.
Address that issue.

PeterPrinciple: "I have asked what time and randomness bring into the equation.
Address the issue.
Counter my argument with science."

"Time and randomness" seem to be just your personal hang-ups, not generally problems for science.
Address that issue.
And since you've made no coherent argument, there's nothing for me to counter, with science or any other discipline.

PeterPrinciple: "I have even tried to lead you to the answer, it is some event that brings in energy and organization.
BUT NOT TIME."

Time is just what it is, your claims here not withstanding.
So I see neither the source of your problem with it, nor your reasons for making a fuss over it.

PeterPrinciple: "TIME AND RANDOMNESS BRING NOTHING TO THE EQUATION.
They distract you from true science."

But they never distract me from "true science" or anything else, so why are they distracting you?

PeterPrinciple: "At least the article brings some evidence and a good questions.
But you go right to time and randomness because you don’t like the evidence."

Nonsense, I've never mentioned "time and randomness", only you have carped endlessly about them.
So, are you confusing me with somebody else?
Who is it?