"Kazmer Ujvarosy" wrote in message
...

snip

Because it answers more questions and makes more predictions than the
notion
that it is alive.
Not, as you might think, in a desperate attempt to keep God out of the
picture. If there was evidence of God, God would be considered a factor.
Your living universe idea is really just a variation on the God theme.
It could be true, but such a model answers no questions and makes no
predictions about the behaviour of the universe. Therefore it is hardly
useful, except as a belief system.
---------------------
Now you are displaying a healthy dose of irrationality. Try to get over
it,
if you're not yet hopelessly deluded. In essence you are arguing that if I
plant an apple seed, I'll be unable to make predictions about the nature
of
the tree what the seed will generate.

You're arguing cosmology, using a botanical metaphor, but you push the
metaphor beyond its limits.
Of course you'll be able to make predictions about the development of a
tree! Why? Because the whole process has been observed and documented.
Without that foreknowledge, you wouldn't stand a chance.

You're wrong. If I know the seed, I
can make predictions about the system it will generate. An apple seed will
generate an apple tree for the purpose of self-reproduction, and those
apples will be harvested by humans or animals. Similarly, by knowing that
a
Cosmic Human Genome is the Initial Seed of the universe, I am in the
position to predict that it will generate a cosmic system for the
production
of human beings in its own image. Moreover I can predict that the human
crop
of our planet will be harvested by beings from outer space;

Can you? Well, of course, you may predict anything you damn well please, and
you certainly do, but you can't present any sort of evidence to make your
prediction convincing. Granted, the scientific knowledge of the beginnings
of the universe are sketchy, but it's still more than what you have.

that the human
genome constitutes the "antimatter" of the universe;
that we have the
wave-particle duality because the Initial Seed of the universe has both
particle and field characteristics.

Now you're mixing quantum mechanics into your idea?

In its potential state, the Cosmic Seed
is a particle, but when it germinates to generate the universe it
transforms
itself into a cosmic field of life. That life field is what you call "dark
energy." Finally I can predict that if you deny the Cosmic Human Genome as
your Creator, you'll not be part of the harvest which is going to take
place.

Ah, the good old threat of eternal damnation as punishment for not believing
in God.
Explain exactly how you consider that a scientific prediction.

So your life is in your own hands. I'm not going to twist your arms
to make you realize that we have a parent in the person of that Cosmic
Seed
which generated the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction. If you
prefer to believe that ultimately you are the product of a Big Bang or
quantum wierdness, it is your problem, not mine.


It may be that only a fraction of the Universe is clearly living,
nevertheless it does not necessarily follow that an explosion caused
the
cosmic system's birth, structure formation, and expansion. We know
that
more
than 97 percent of the oldest giant Sequoia's mass is considered to be
non-living, and we know that no one living today could have observed
the
birth of that tree, yet no sensible person would speculate that an
explosion
or quantum fluctuation caused its generation, and that purposeless
non-living forces drive that giant's structure formation and
expansion.

If we didn't *know* how the tree came to be, and we never encountered
any
other trees before, we might consider that.
---------------------
Correct. And that would be delusion extreme.

No, that would be ignorance - not delusion. Delusion is a belief, strongly
held in spite of invalidating evidence.

So is the belief that
ultimately a Big Bang or quantum fluctuation generated the uniuverse and
life.

It's not just something science has made up. It is theory based on available
evidence, namely through the observation of very distant regions of the
universe (and therefore also a look back in time, because of the speed of
light).
Sure, it may not be an accurate theory, but it is at least based on
empirical evidence.

---------------------

Also, when we observe that our giant Sequoia develops leaves, flowers
and
seeds, we do not speculate that the tree's dead materials managed to
generate primitive life forms; we do not speculate that those
primitive
cells evolved into the complexity of leaves, the leaves into the
complexity
of flowers, and the flowers into the complexity of seeds, over long
periods
of time as a result of random mutations, recombination, and natural
selection. We are not so deluded because we know that natural systems
resemble each other in fundamental ways,

We know that because we have been able to observe it in detail.
We have not yet been able to observe the very early universe in sufficient
detail to be equally sure about that.


They resemble each other because there are only a few basic optimal ways
to
survive on this planet. Any lifeforms that deviate too far from such
designs
can't survive to reproduce, and go extinct. Evolution moves inexorably
towards optimum efficiency, precisely because the fittest survive.
------------------
You babble about evolution, not being able to realize that what you call
evolution is actually development from an Initial Cosmic Seed. Also, when
you talk about evolution moving "inexorably towards optimum efficiency,"
presumably as a result of natural selection, you should realize that no
selection of whatever kind can take place in the absence of a purpose.
Deluded evolutionists deny the role of purpose in nature, yet they babble
about "natural selection." Once again, in the absence of purpose no
selection can take place, just as in the absence of goal posts we can't
score a goal. Is it clear? Can you get it? Nature is DEVELOPING
"inexorably
towards optimum efficiency" because the Cosmic Seed's guiding force and
intelligence is behind that progressive development.

Present some evidence for your claims, or stop calling what you're talking
about science. To be science, it has to adhere to the scientific method, and
it does not.
And no, drawing a direct parallel between the universe and a tree is not
logical.

-------------------
and in our experience life is the
driving force behind the birth, formation, and growth, of any natural
system
whose development we can follow from birth.

Even if we are faced with a giant Sequoia, we know that a single seed
akin
to its tiny winged seeds generated that giant for the purpose of
self-reproduction. A child who has never seen a seed unfold into a
tree
may
be fooled into believing that the tree's structure emerged from the
dirt
as
a result of an explosion, and gravity acting on that explosion. That
child
may even believe in the evolution of leaves from branches, and in the
evolution of seeds from leaves. But those of us who can follow a
tree's
development from seed to seeds know beyond any reasonable doubt that
lesser
complexity generating greater complexity, and evolution from
simplicity
to
complexity, are illusions.

Let's talk a bit more about fractal patterns. They are very complex
indeed,
and the complexity is created by feeding a simple number into a simple
formula, then feeding the result back into the formula, and so on ad
infinitum. The pattern that *emerges* is not there in the formula or the
seed number.
Are you saying that these patterns are living beings? Surely not.
Perhaps your method of defining life is flawed when something clearly
non-living can meet the criteria?
---------------------
Have you discovered what is clearly non-living? Hurry, let others know,
because so far no one has been able to find a boundary line between the
living and the clearly non-living.

That's right, it's a blurry line. I do, however, feel reasonably confident
that when a computer is iterating a fractal, that isn't life.

Again you are talking about complexity
created by simplicity. Is simplicity feeding itself into a simple formula,
or is it a human being? If it is a human being, why do you give the credit
to simplicity for the alleged generation of complexity? Where did
simplicity
make any decision in the entire process? How can you be so gullible and
swallow skin and hide such ridiculous claims?

Yes, of course a human being has to set up the initial conditions (the
formula), and start the process. At that point, there is no complexity. The
complexity then emerges without any intervention.
And that really is a problem, since we truly don't know whether or not a
sentient being of some sort set up the initial state of the universe. It
would be foolish to refuse the idea that the initial system was designed. We
just don't know. We will probably never be able to look back beyond the
inception point of the universe, so we can never find real evidence of a
creator. There may still be one, but that is outside the realm of science,
and it is impossible to argue either for or against a creator while
remaining scientific.

--------------------
We know that the reality behind those illusions
is the tree system's initial seed. The initial seed's field of life
energy
drives and controls that structure's development and life.

From where did "life energy" suddenly pop?
Maybe you should consider that the tree's genome is responsible, and
then
there's no need for metaphysics.
-------------------
For a stupid question I can give you only a stupid answer. The stupid
question is: 'From where did "life energy" suddenly pop?' The stupid
answer
is this: From nothing. For rational people the existence of life energy
means that life energy has always existed.

That wasn't what I meant - I meant from where did it pop in this discussion.
You simply jump to the conclusion that there is life energy, without
evidence of it. What kind of energy is it? Electromagnetic? Gravitic?
Propose a way of measuring it.
There's life on earth, so surely there would be plenty of life energy. It
should be possible to find a way to build a detector. That detector could
then be pointed into deep space. If the cosmic background radiation then
turned out to be replete with life energy, then we'd have something.

And anything that exists had to
exist in one form or another, because otherwise it would have to come from
nothing. In our experience, however, from nothing we get only nothing. But
it seems that in your experience you can get anything you wish from
nothing.
I'd like to see a demonstration of that miracle.

I'd like to see a demonstration that the universe is alive and based on a
human being.

-------------------
It constitutes
that structure's constant or parameters. For the various components of
that
structure the initial seed is also the common ancestor. The tree's
quintessence or life energy has its source in the initial seed, and is
reconstituted in the seeds generated. We may say that the seed is the
Alpha
and the Omega, the input and the output, or the beginning and the end,
of
the tree system.

We may, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Genetics explains how a tree
works very well without such notions.
-----------------
Since you seem to be too lame to notice, I'm talking about genetics ...
Cosmic Genetics.

I noticed that. It makes no sense, however. Genetics deals with DNA and RNA.
You invented a new term, it seems, but I wasn't referring to your "cosmic
genetics".

-----------------



Because seeds have both particle and field properties,

Since you adhere so strictly to your tree analogy elsewhere in this
discussion, I expect you to demonstrate the field properties of an apple
seed.

when the initial
seed
acts on non-life to generate a structure for the purpose of
self-reproduction, it passes from a potential or particle state into a
state
of expression or field of life energy. The field of life energy
remains
hidden or "dark" in the background, but we may infer its existence in
its
manifestation as a complex structure or system.
The initial seed's existence
is also inferable from the existence of its reproductions. To
illustrate,
the initial seed of a giant Sequoia is manifest in the tree's
structure,
and
also in the seeds which that structure yields. Thus the existence of a
giant
Sequoia implies the existence of an initial Sequoia seed, and the
existence
of the millions of tiny winged Sequoia seeds also implies the
existence
of
an initial Sequoia seed.

Consider that a Sequoia of the current generation isn't exactly the same
as
Sequoias of generations past. It's gradual change, not sudden.


The point I intend to make is that if we find that a natural system
came
into being, and displays structure formation and expansion, then from
nature
's hard, solid facts we may infer that the system has life, because
those
signs are the manifestations of life.

It's not a good definition of life. A computer virus lives up to it.

If it could be demonstrated that no
initial life played an intimate role in the birth of this life-giving
cosmic
structure, and in its formation and expansion, then life's generation
by
non-life would constitute the solitary exception to the principle of
biogenesis. However, as Peter T. Mora noted, "How life originated, I
am
afraid that, since Pasteur, this question is not within the scientific
domain" [see "Urge and Molecular Biology," by Peter T. Mora; Nature,
July
20, 1963].


The Principle of Biogenesis

In the Oxford Dictionary of Biology [Oxford University Press, 2000] we
find:
"biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from
other
living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like)
and
can never originate from nonliving material." In the Science and
Technology
Encyclopedia [University of Chicago Press, 1999] on the same subject
we
read: "Biological principle maintaining that all living organisms
derive
from parent(s) generally similar to themselves. This long-held
principle
was
originally established in opposition to the idea of SPONTANEOUS
GENERATION
of life. On the whole, it still holds good, despite variations in
individuals caused by mutations, hybridization, and other genetic
effects."

It does not rule out that one lifeform may, over the course of many
generations, become a lifeform so different that it seems completely
unrelated.
--------------
No life form is unrelated. They are unrelated only in your head.

I wrote "seems completely unrelated" - i.e. they are so different that they
appear to be unrelated, when in fact they are related.

--------------

Regarding this subject we should be aware of the fact that probably no
biological generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly
tested
evidences than the principle of biogenesis. And because the scientific
evidence is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that life can never
originate
from non-life, only from life akin to itself, it is an entirely
reasonable
scientific conclusion that there was never a time when life did not
exist,
and human life could come only from human life akin to itself.

Although the question of what separates the living from the non-living
still
gives biologists restless nights, and although the principle of
biogenesis
remains unfalsified, cosmologists do not seem to be concerned. They
sidestep
those issues by postulating a non-living source for our life-giving
Universe.



What makes them do so? Incompetence and self-delusion seem to be the
most
plausible reasons. Non-life's followers admit that abiogenesis cannot
occur
now, but argue that it played an essential role in the origin of life
when
the conditions favored abiogenesis billions of years ago.

It can't occur *here* now.
That's not the same as to say that it can no longer occur anywhere in
the
universe.
--------------
Care to provide demonstrable evidence? You are speculating, without any
shread of evidence. Sorry, I am not nearly as credulous as you are.

And I'm not making any claims. From the available evidence, it seems that
abiogenesis doesn't occur here now. There is no evidence either for or
against the notion that it is occurring elsewhere in the universe.

--------------
As you may have
guessed the evidence for that postulate is a big fat zero.

As is the evidence for your postulate, so don't get haughty.
---------------
The evidence for my postulate is all over the place. Seeds generate plants
for the purpose of self-reproduction, and reproductive cells generate
living
systems for the purpose of self-reproduction. So the postulate that a
Cosmic
Human Genome generated the universe for the production of human beings in
its own image is based on overwhelming evidence, and is most scientific.

You don't actually know what "scientific" really means, do you?
What you have there isn't scientific - it is a monumental leap of faith.

Now
try to demonstrate that non-life can generate anything greater than
itself.

You know very well that I can't demonstrate anything if the demonstration is
invalidated by the very act of demonstrating because no human involvement is
allowed.

How about you try to demonstrate the creation of a universe, using a human
as a seed?

---------------
Based on the same
non-evidence we can argue that at this time the conditions are not
right
for
making the Sun stand still, but at one time the conditions favored the
performance of that miracle. So it is beyond any doubt that the
origin-of-life superstition is unconnected to any empirically
verifiable
reality. It is simply delusion, conjured up by minds closed to the
supremacy
of life.

You're getting perilously close to sounding like an evangelist preacher
now.
-------------
Evangelist preachers are more rational than evolutionist preachers. They
credit the creation of the universe to everlasting life,

They credit the creation of the universe to the idea of a God, hatched about
6000 years ago by Semite tribes.

but you credit to
primitive life the generation of complex life. You try to derive what
primitive life does not have, namely complex life forms. Again, I'm not as
deluded as you are.

That's just funny.

-------------


Even if we assume for the sake of irrationality that non-life managed
to
generate life-i.e. that an inferior cause yielded a superior effect-,
logically only non-life is qualified to demonstrate the production of
life
from non-life. No form of life may play a role in that experiment
because
the claim is that non-life on its own performed that most miraculous
act.
Thus the laughably foolish claim is that the lesser is superior to the
more
complex because the more complex is the product of the lesser.

Not so. The seed is not superior to the final product. Indeed, it is
vastly
inferior in terms of complexity.
-------------
Said who? You? Care to explain where that vastly greater complexity came
from? If it does not have its origin in the seed, where did it come from?

To stay with your tree analogy, do you claim that an apple seed is more
complex than an apple tree? It has less detail and fewer different types of
cells and it contains fewer chemical compunds. It is less complex.

-------------

Moreover, if the credit goes to non-life for the creation of life,
then
logically only non-life is qualified to "know" what it took to perform
that
miracle of all miracles.

Miracle is a religious term, not a scientific one.
We only tend to think of life as a miracle because we are alive, so for
us
it is special. It makes no difference to the universe if we consider
life
a
miracle or not.
----------------
By babbling about science and religion you only demonstrate that you have
no
clue what you are talking about. Both religion and science seek to explain
reality. If what they say is in conformity with reality, they are on equal
footing.

That's where you are wrong. They are never on equal footing, because one
deals with evidence, theory, and prediction, whereas the other deals with
scripture, usually thousands of years old, that is believed to be the
ultimate truth - a truth that is never subject to change, no matter the
severity of conflicting evidence.

So if any statement is in line with reality, that statement tells
the truth,

Huge, huge, huge mistake. There are several different and conflicting, but
consistent, ways to explain reality.

no matter what label you give to it, be it science or religion.

It's not just a label. Science and religion are like apples and oranges.

There are only explanations that tell the truth, and explanations that
fail
to tell the truth.
Any explanation that fails to tell the truth is invalid,
no matter under what label you make that false explanation.

Correct. I'm not saying that your cosmology is untrue. I'm saying it isn't
scientific.

----------------
Human involvement in any origin-of-life experiment
can only prove what we all know, that life can generate life, but the
absurd
contention is that actually non-life generated life. So how can any
sane
person give credit to non-life for the production of any form of
primitive
life in the lab when those experiments are performed by humans?

Um, but life, even the most primitive kind, has not been created in a
lab.
Most likely because the timeframe needed is too vast.
-------------
I'm not interested in your speculations,

All you have is speculation. What makes your speculation more worthy of
attention than mine?

I'm interested in the facts.

Of which you have none.

Can
non-life demonstrate, in the total absence of life, that it has the
potential to generate life? I challenge you to provide a rational answer.
Good luck.

Even if scientists do manage to bring about the creation of primitive life
in a laboratory, you won't consider that valid evidence because humans were
involved.
Congratulations; your religion is safe.

------------
Humans
decide what kind of materials they want to use, what kind of
equipment,
what
kind of processes, and so on. Where is any choice or decision made by
non-life? Is there need to make it more evident that any
origin-of-life
claim is absurd on theoretical and practical grounds, and flies
valiantly
in
the face of all scientific common sense?

It doesn't. It may fly in the face of non-scientific people, such as
yourself, due to a profound lack of imagination and understanding of the
concept of emergence.
-----------
For idiots like you nothing flies in the face of common sense and reality.
I'm not surprised.

Well, your tree-universe analogy does fly in the face of common sense and
reality.

-----------

The existence of this origin-of-life superstition in science is
embarrassing
indeed, to say the least. There is no way to test it by anything
living,
yet
it claims to be scientific.

And it is scientific.
If makes no needless assumptions, choosing the simplest concievable way
to
explain things given the available data. The idea of God, or a living
sentient universe, is not the simplest way, because then we're left with
the
question of what created God (or what gave birth to the universe).
--------------
Thanks again for demonstrating what an idiot and simpleton you are. If you
believe that an explosion of a hypothetical singularity or Big Bang
managed
to generate the universe and life, we are left with the question of what
created that singularity, what caused the explosion of that singularity,
and
how that explosion could take place in the absence of a container and
oxygen,

And thank you for demonstrating your profound lack of education with great
clarity.
Oxygen is needed for combustion. There are other kinds of explosion out
there. A star doesn't burn. A nuclear bomb doesn't need oxygen.

not to mention how zero complexity could generate what it does not
have, namely greater complexity. So no matter who or what you credit with
the creation of the universe, the Creator had to be eternal, and had to
have
the potential to generate the complexity of the universe.

We will likely forever be unable to look further back than the initial state
of the universe, and we would need to in order to know anything of a
creator.
There may well be a creator, but based on available evidence, it seems that
the role of that creator was limited to the creation of the initial
singularity (or whatever it was), and the natural laws that govern it. Every
thing from that point on seems to have taken place without any active
intelligent guidance.

---------------
It can't be observed by anything living, yet its
proponents rashly promote it as the best scientific explanation for
the
existence of life. Do we still have rational scientists who wish to
know
where the proof is for life's origin from non-life?

I expect all would be absolutely thrilled to see evidence. Any hard
evidence, one way or the other, would be great. If there was evidence
that
showed that the universe taken as a whole is alive as you say, theories
incompatible with the new data would be discarded.
------------
The universe is showing all the signs of life, only persons like you
wearing
the blindfold of evolution from simplicity-to-complexity can't see it.

It shows signs of having life within it. There are no signs that it is
actually alive.
It could be, sure, but there's no evidence.
There's plenty of evidence that there's life in it, though.


------------

Another clue for the existence of this origin-of-life superstition in
the
scientific community is given by George Wald, a former Harvard
biochemist
and winner of the Nobel Prize. In his "Innovation and Biology" article
we
find: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is
spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a
supernatural

creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous
generation,
that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved
120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

It can't be easily disproven, as the timeframes that would be needed
probably exceeds the age of human civilization thousands of times (at
the
least).
At best, they proved that it is not something that happens quickly.
----------
In your opinion given enough time, anything can happen, or come into
existence. Where is the demonstrable evidence for your belief? And if
anything is possible, given enough time, God's coming into being also must
be possible in your opinion. But if you think that God's coming into being
is not possible, what makes you believe that all other things are
possible,
given enough time?

Oops, you've given yourself away there.
You think I refuse to acknowledge that there may be a God. I don't.
You demonstrate clearly, however, that you believe in God fervently,
refusing to even consider that there might not be a God.

----------
That leaves us with the only possible
conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I
will
not
accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution" [see
"Innovation
and Biology," by George Wald; Scientific American, September 1958].

As I already indicated, there is a third possibility: from the
principle
of
biogenesis, and from the observation of natural systems, we may infer
that
human life is the Creator of the Universe. Human life needs no cause
because
it constitutes the Initial Cosmic Genome, Cosmological Constant or
Common
Ancestor, of our Universe. Human life exists, and if human life
generated
the Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, then human life is
immortal because the Universe, being the effect, has no power to act
upon
the cause of its own origin, similarly as a tree has no power to act
upon
the seed of its own origin. Moreover human life appears to be immortal
in
the sense that no experiment has proven otherwise.

No experiments have disproven God either. Yet that doesn't mean that God
*must* exist. Your logic is less than decent.
---------------
Are you really braindead? Can't you get it that human life equals God?

Only according to your religion. Give me one rational reason why I should
follow your religion.

So if
you deny the existence of God, you deny the existence of human life.

I am not in the business of denying God. I merely reserve such judgement
until there is evidence.

When
Philip wanted to see God, Christ immediately provided the empirical
evidence: "He who has seen me has seen the Father, how can you say, "Show
us
the Father'?"--John 14:8-9.

Prior to that Jesus clearly stated that a man is God. He said: "I and my
Father are one."--John 10:30. When in Revelation 22:13 Christ declares, "I
am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last," he
also identifies man as both the input and output of the world system.
Moreover he reminded the Jews: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods?"--John 10:34.

And you proceed to quote from that ~2000 years old scipture, as if it
constitutes any sort of proof.
Don't you see how pathetic that is? It has no place in a scientific debate.



Any person who can invent a plausible, empirically supported theory of
mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life may collect the
$1,350,000
Origin-of-Life Prize, and most definitely a Nobel Prize. However these
rewards are still up for grabs because no one was able to invent such
a
theory of mechanism, and obviously never will, because non-life has
nothing
to do with the generation of life.

Where's the proof of your claims?

So far as our clear and certain
knowledge
goes, life comes only from life, and the formation of structures is
the
basic quality of life, not that of non-life. This implies that
anything
with
a structure is the product of life, and not that of non-life.


The Principle of Causality

Modern cosmology's assumption that non-life caused the birth,
formation,
and
expansion, of our Universe, also flies straight in the face of the
principle
of causality.

The principle of causality stipulates that cause and effect are
proportionate, because the effect cannot be greater than the cause
which
is
required to produce that effect. In other words a cause cannot produce
anything greater than itself. Otherwise the extra part of the effect
would
be without a cause, and that is contrary to reason. It may be
entertaining
to watch how a magician conjures out of thin air all kinds of
things-or
a
cosmologist, as a matter of fact-, but in reality no one has yet been
able
to get something from nothing.

Nobody is saying that the universe came from nothing.
It may have come from something that would appear to us as nothing. Who
are
we to claim perfect perception?
----------------
Earlier you wanted to know where God or the Creator of the universe came
from. Now I want to know where that "something that would appear to us as
nothing" came from. You believe in something that appears to you as
nothing,
but you are surprised that I credit the creation of the universe to human
life, i.e. to something that obviously exists.

Of course I'm surprised. It's not every day I see such a claim made. Not
even by religious people.

-----------------





A salt crystal, for example, can break down to sodium (Na) and
chlorine
(Cl), and even those ingredients can break down to smaller parts, but
if
anyone argues that a salt crystal can evolve into something more
complex
on
its own, then we are justified in smelling a causality violation. So
in
light of this solid scientific foundation it becomes clear that we are
violating the principle of causality if we argue that non-life
generated
life, or that primitive life evolved into the complexity and diversity
of
life on its own strength.

Because it is self-evident that the superior can contain the inferior,
but
the reverse is impossible, any model that fails to derive human life
from
a
source which is equal or superior to human life is unacceptable. Those
who
credit the creation of human life to the Universe, rather than the
creation
of the Universe to human life, are like that proverbial maker of an
idol
who
supposed that the idol which he had made actually made him.

So there we have it. "People created the universe."
-------------
Don't get so desperate. Where did I write, "People created the universe"?
That's your statement, not mine. What I say is that a perpetual Cosmic
Human
Genome created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly
as a seed generates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. Now if
you
think in your scrambled mind that this statement fails to be scientific,
I'd
like to know what you have against it. Be specific, if you can, in view of
your imbecility.

Your hypothesis is not testable, so it is worthless from a scientific
viewpoint.
A viable hypothesis is one that can be tested, and that can, potentially,
subsequently be developed into a theory that is capable of making
predictions.

--------------
And you expect anyone to actually take you seriously when you're
sounding
like an utter crackpot? *That* would be a real miracle.
--------------
If you consider yourself to be normal, I prefer to be called an utter
crackpot.

Fine.

--------------

Let us now consider another finding that made modern cosmology's
chronic
input deficiency even more manifest.


Biological Fine-Tuning

Contemporary cosmology just can't get over the discovery that our
Universe
appears to be biocentric or bio-friendly, i.e. that the cosmological
parameters are ingeniously fine-tuned for the production of life.

Did you consider that this is so because the life that is available for
study is perfectly adapted to the current conditions, instead of the
other
way around?
--------------
No, I definitely did not consider that nonsense, because the conditions in
nature are ruled by genetics. But if you think you have contrary evidence,
I
would love to see it.

I assume when you say "genetics", you actually mean your special brand of
"cosmic genetics".
In that framework, I have no contrary evidence, since you have conveniently
made sure you covered all your bases while constructing it.
In the framework of *actual* genetics, there is plenty of evidence.

-------------
In our
experience the parameters or determining characteristics of plant and
animal
systems are delicately fine-tuned for the production of reproductive
cells
because those systems are reproductive cells unfolded. We find, in
other
words, that the parameters of a hen are fine-tuned for the production
of
eggs because an egg generated that system for the purpose of
self-reproduction. Also we find that the parameters of an apple tree
are
fine-tuned for the production of apples because an apple seed
generated
that
system for the purpose of self-reproduction. So when we find that the
parameters of our Universe are fine-tuned for the production of life,
then
the most plausible explanation seems to be that it is so because an
Initial
Cosmic Genome generated the cosmic system for the purpose of
self-reproduction.

Needless to say, none of the celebrities of science came even near to
this
conclusion.

Of *course* not. None of them came *anywhere* near your *obvious*
genius.
---------------
I humbly accept that compliment.
---------------
Instead they appeal to the idea of a multiverse or many-worlds
interpretation, and fancies of that nature, in an effort to explain
away
the
bio-centrality of our Universe.

Funny that you should consider the multiverse a "fancy". If the universe
is
designed for self-reproduction, there must be offspring, no?
----------------
A tree is designed for self-reproduction, and the seeds represent the
offspring. Similarly, the universe is designed for self-reproduction, and
human beings represent the offspring.

So when do we go out to start new universes? Trees wouldn't produce seeds if
the seeds would just stay within the tree. The point of seeds is to drop off
and become other trees.

Just as you don't need a separate tree
for each seed, we don't need a separate universe for each human being.
Can
you get it?

So we're basically failed seeds? A seed that does not germinate has failed
in its purpose.

Or should I spoonfeed it to you again?
----------------
However the facts remain, and the weird
evidenceless speculations will have to go, because they hamper the
progress
of science in many ways.

Sorry, but your evidenceless speculation is weirder by many orders of
magnitude, and has to go first of all. Fortunately, you do not hamper
the
progress of science, since your theory is so patently unscientific that
nobody in their right mind would consider it.
-------------
If the postulate that a Cosmic Seed of Human Life generated the universe
for
the purpose of self-reproduction is evidenceless speculation,

But it *is* evidenceless speculation.

then in your
fuzzy mind it is an evidenceless speculation that a single seed generated
the giant sequoia for the purpose of self-reproduction.

No, that is an observable process, and the mechanism is quite well
understood (genetics - the normal kind, not your new kind).

After all you
believe, in your state of delusion, that complexity is the product of
simplicity, that life is the product of non-life.

The available evidence suggests that complex life evolved from primitive
life. The origin of the first life is still an unanswered question.

-------------

Energetic Expansion

What really causes modern cosmology great agony is the recent
discovery
that
the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, rather than
decelerating.
Practically all involved seem to be clueless what makes the cosmic
structure
's expansion more energetic. In our experience growth or expansion,
increases in level of complexity, and the potential to become more
energetic, are the basic qualities of living systems. So the findings
that
the cosmic structure's level of complexity increases and becomes more
energetic imply that our Universe is an open system. But open to what?
The
only reasonable answer is, I'm absolutely confident, that our Universe
is
open to a Cosmic Genome's field of life energy.

Ooooo, shiny!
What, pray tell, is "life energy". How do we measure it?
-------------
So if you can't measure life energy, life energy does not exist, and
therefore life does not exist either.

You're assuming that life requires a special type of energy to exist. Why?

What more can I say about your state
of mind?

You are not qualified to make statements about my state of mind.

Tell me, can you measure a seed's development into a tree? How do
you measure that process? And if you can't measure it, does it mean no
development from a seed to tree takes place?

Yes, I can. It can be measured in mass/time, height/time, metabolic rate,
etc. It can even be photographed and captured on video, and played back as a
timelapse movie to make the development visible in real time.

-------------
If you have no answer for that, then stick to new age groups - they
might
take you seriously. Heck, you might even become head of your own cult if
you
try hard enough.
------------
Probably any new age group is more rational than the cult you belong to.

Then why are you posting to sci.astro?

-------------
This is a sci. newsgroup, so if you're wanting to change the best that
hundreds of the finest minds in recent history have come up with, you'd
better make sure you're on solid scientific footing. As it is, you
wouldn't
know scientific method if it came up to you and bit you.
--------------
The footing I stand on is the existence of human life in the universe. I
do
not need a firmer footing to stand on.

If you're trying to prove that human life exists, that's all you need. It
doesn't go beyond that, though.

Your footing is belief in non-life's
miraculous creative abilities.

My beliefs are not a factor in my footing in this discussion.

If you prefer to worship non-life's works of
miracles, it is your problem, not mine.
--------------
snip the rest of what I now know to be screed - I wasn't sure at first,
but
that changed
---------------
Trust me, I had no illusions about you from the beginning. You are
hopelessly deluded, and I am not qualified to deal with mentally disturbed
persons.

Neither am I, but I do it anyway. It's good sport.

However if you feel you have to discuss anything, please do not
hesitate to get in touch with your nearest head doctor.


As you spread your ill-conceived ideas around some more, you'll find that I
am far from the only one that won't agree with you.

Have a nice day.

I'm sure I will, considering how effectively you shot yourself in the foot
several times in this discussion. That will keep me amused for a bit.