Amp writes:
You take for granted that all living things have a parent, because it is such a simple concept that it requires no evidence to prove it.
No evidence is needed huh?
Amp writes:
On the other hand there is NO evidence or example of anything anywhere in nature without a parent.
Oh. So now the need for parentage is based on the evidence that things have parents.
Look - If rabbits and cows and aardvaarks etc. were blinking into existence fully formed ex-nihilo all the time the evidence would suggest that they don't need parents and your common sense notions that they do wouldn't be worth a pile of squirrel poo. So, whether you realise it or not your whole "parent" argument is actually derived from some notion of evidence.
Amp writes:
On the other hand there is NO evidence or example of anything anywhere in nature without a parent.
Having arrived at your "parent" argument on the basis of some notion of evidence (despite originally claiming that no evidence was involved) you are now seeking to extrapolate it in, I suspect, silly ways.
Complex living organisms certainly have parents. But if you are going to claim that everything has parents you are going to need to tell us what exactly you mean by the term "parent". Do you effectively mean "cause"....?
Amp writes:
No amount of evidence can justify a ridiculous idea that itself breaks the first law of thermodynamics.
If you are talking about "first cause" of some sort perhaps you could explain how you get round this problem you seem to be setting up for yourself. It is worth noting that any talk of "eternity" here will A) Almost inevitably contravene the second law of thermodynamics and B) Be as un-evidenced as the un-parented things you are so fond of talking about.
Amp writes:
I would remind you that simple common sense alone is enough to justify my claim that all living things have a parent.
Then why do you keep using the word "evidence"....?
Amp writes:
And I would challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.
That complex living organisms have parents isn't really in dispute. It is the silly extrapolations you make that are going to be your downfall here.