Breakthrough in Cosmology

As you may know in light of the big bang paradigm's explanatory impotence
many physicists claim, including Leonard Susskind of Stanford University and
his colleagues, that the contemporary theoretical view of the Universe is so
unlikely that it must be logically flowed, and apparently we are missing
something fundamental. Susskind's team posits that some "unknown agent
intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own" [see
www.nature.com/nsu/020812/020812-2.html].



You may be interested to know that the postulate that a perpetual Cosmic
Genome is the genotype of the phenotype Universe is in excellent agreement
with the accurate data we have. Remarkably, it also agrees with Maori
cosmology: "In the Maori world, whakapapa or lineage connects us all to
every aspect of the universe from the beginning of time -- to the very first
seed that created the universe. ... For it is the seed of life from which
all things grow and, through which all things are connected. It is the seed
that holds the potential of the universe" [see
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/unff-p...e-papers/maori
-plantation-forestry.pdf].

Thus the fundamental "unknown agent" we are missing appears to be a Cosmic
Genome, which Genome generated the Universe for the production of human life
in its own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of
seeds in its own image. This Seed Cosmology tells us that the initial cause
of the Universe is a Cosmic Genome, and also the source of the basic forces
and laws of nature. Because structure formation is the basic quality of
life, the Cosmic Genome explains the cosmic system's formation, development
and energetic expansion, as well as the common origin of all forms of life
from that Cosmic Common Ancestor.

As you may see there is one crucial assumption in this Seed Cosmology: it
presupposes that the highest and most complex form of life that exists
constitutes the Initial Seed of the Universe. The purpose of the article
below is to point out that we have good empirical reasons to postulate that
this is the case.

Kazmer Ujvarosy

Academia Consulting


Breakthrough in Cosmology

By Kazmer Ujvarosy

Whereas it is amusing to watch scientists dealing with a living Universe
which they are dead sure is dead, at the same time it is annoying, and I
think it is about time to bring that message home.



Modern cosmology is still not a proper science because its mathematical
models have no predictive power. The aim of quantum cosmogenesis is to make
it predictive by finding a simple and convincing model that specifies
exactly the initial state of the Universe, and explains the generation of
the entire Universe in terms of that initial state. In essence the task is
to link the present cosmic structure or macrocosm to its microcosmic origin,
and to make predictions based on the knowledge of that microcosmic origin.

According to Stephen Hawking [see
www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/quantum.html] the singularity theorems show
that our Universe had a quantum origin, or popped into existence in a
quantum blip out of nothing, and therefore we need a theory of quantum
gravity to describe the process of creation, and to make testable
predictions. Also he finds the Anthropic Principle helpful in finding a
model that represents our Universe.

I shall argue that the present Universe, which indubitably yields life forms
of great complexity, is reducible not to an inanimate initial singularity or
quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex Initial Cosmic Genome.
If this Seed Theory of Creation is correct-i.e. that an Initial Cosmic
Genome generated our Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of seeds in its own
image-, then we don't need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the
process of creation, because the Universe does not have a quantum origin,
but a seed origin. Thus there is no need to treat the Universe as though it
were a quantum particle. Rather, we must treat it as a Cosmic Tree of Life
that unfolds from an Initial Cosmic Seed. We may consider the Initial Cosmic
Seed uncreated and immortal, because the Universe has no power to act upon
the Initial Seed of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon
the initial seed of its own origin.




The Tree Model



Earlier findings that our Universe had a beginning are still being digested
by cosmology's mathematical models. If the Universe did not always exist,
where did it come from? What gave birth to the Universe? Birth or coming
into being is a sign of life. In our experience it implies invariably
unfoldment from a source of life. Animals unfold from reproductive cells,
and plants unfold from seeds. For some reason, however, the world's
celebrated cosmologists and theoreticians failed to give life a chance to
play any role in their models of the Universe. Their search for a plausible
explanation yielded a paradigm that attempts to explain the birth, structure
formation, and expansion, of our Universe in terms of a cataclysmic
explosion. The cause of that explosion, however, remains an open question.
In any case the big bang paradigm is still being celebrated all over the
world as the best model to represent our Universe.

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.
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, 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. 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. 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.



Because seeds have both particle and field properties, 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.

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. 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."

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

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.

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. 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? 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?

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. 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?

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. 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.

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. 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.





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.

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. 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. 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. However the facts remain, and the weird
evidenceless speculations will have to go, because they hamper the progress
of science in many ways.







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.

Because the Cosmos is the Cosmic Genome's effect, and lives within the
Cosmic Genome's field of life energy (you may call it "cosmological
constant," "quantum vacuum," "dark energy," or "quintessence"), the Cosmos
has no power to act upon the very cause of its own origin, similarly as a
tree has no power to act upon the seed of its own origin. This implies the
Cosmic Genome's immortality, and that the Cosmic Genome is the Common
Ancestor of all things generated in the Universe.




The Living Cosmology

The available data indicate that instead of non-life, the most complex form
of life that exists is the Cosmic Seed or Common Ancestor of our Universe.
Because we know human life to be the most complex form of life, the
tentative Cosmic Seed of the Universe is human life, pending the discovery
of an even more complex form of life. Thus the Unified Theory that an
initial Cosmic Genome, akin to human genome, generated the Universe for the
purpose of self-reproduction appears to provide the best explanation for the
data we have.

It may be argued that human life is not the highest form of life in the
Universe, but it does not tally with the obvious facts we have. There is
absolutely no demonstrable evidence in favor of the belief that a life form,
as superior to us as we are to the animals, exists. But if anyone insists
that human life is not the highest form of life in existence, where is the
evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, or can come into
existence? Those who argue in favor of such a superhuman life have the
burden to deliver the demonstrable evidence. So the proposal that human life
constitutes the cosmic system's provisional output remains valid. Only the
discovery of a superhuman output can falsify that theory, or evidence that a

cause can generate an effect greater than is found in the cause.



From the inference that human life constitutes the provisional Cosmic Output
necessarily follows that human life is also the provisional Cosmic Input,
pending the discovery of an even greater complexity.

Because this Living Cosmology rests on the input/output nature of human
life, let's make it more certain that human life is indeed the cosmic system

's output.

We know from systems science that the self-regulation of a system depends on
negative information-feedback on part of the output. The feedback is
compared to the input value. If the deviation between the input value and
the actual output is significant to generate error signals, the error
signals cause the system to reduce the errors or deviations closer to zero.
Now the question is: Are human beings providing information feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed? If they provide information feedback, in that
case we have convincing evidence that indeed human life constitutes the
output of our Universe.

I propose that what we call prayer is actually information feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed. By providing information-feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed we transform the universe from an open-loop
system into a closed-loop or self-correcting system.

Thus from the systems point of view information feedback in the form of
prayer is most desirable, because that feedback is not automatic. The
universe does not measure error through the automatic feedback of its own
human output, but assumes that its human output is without deviation, i.e.
that the human beings produced are the Initial Seed's exact reproductions.
So it is the human output's responsibility to make known to the cosmic
system's Initial Seed by means of information-feedback what defects or
deviations we have relative to the input's values. That information feedback
in the form of prayer enables the Initial Seed to evaluate the cosmic system
's operation and to correct the detected errors in the cosmic system's
functions.

But how can the human output know about the Initial Cosmic Seed's values?
Revelation is the answer. The Initial Cosmic Seed, being human life akin to
our life, communicates it to its children. By having those high standards in
view, and by striving to live up to those high standards, we may achieve
immortality akin to the Initial Seed's immortality.

In light of this Living Cosmology now it seems clear that we have to stand
the scientific community's bottom-up world view on its head. Progression
from bottom-up is a delusion, and it violates the most basic principles of
science. It seeks to derive from the lesser what the lesser does not
have-greater complexity. We have seen enough of the hat tricks many of our
scientists perform. Now it is time to face reality: only the highest form of
life or complexity that exists can yield lesser forms of life or complexity
without violating the most basic principles of science. The reverse process
is a delusion.


Conclusion

In contradiction with evolution's tree of life that derives the diversity
and complexity of life from a simple common ancestor, the Seed Theory of
Creation posits that an initial and most complex Cosmic Genome generated the
Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, similarly as a seed generates
a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

This natural model of the Universe is solidly based on a tree system, and on
the observation of that system. It allows us to infer that if an oak tree,
for example, yields acorns, then we can be confident beyond any reasonable
doubt that an initial acorn generated that tree for the purpose of
self-reproduction. Based on this observation it is safe to infer that if our
Universe yields output in the form of human beings, then evidently an
Initial Seed of human life generated the cosmic system for the purpose of
self-reproduction.

Thus in light of this Living Cosmology we may see that modern cosmology's
standard big bang model is worthless, unless we throw it to the flames to
keep us warm. On the other hand the Living Cosmology is based solidly on the
existence of human life, and on the observation of natural systems. In the
same light we may see that creation exists in nature, independently of the
Bible and other sacred scriptures.

We see creation taking place in nature all the time: eggs generate birds for
the purpose of self-reproduction; seeds generate plants for the purpose of
self-reproduction; and finally, the Cosmic Seed generates a cosmic system
for the purpose of self-reproduction. So this Living Cosmology is
scientifically sound because it is extrapolated from the observation of
natural systems. Moreover, in contrast with the speculations that derive the
Universe from non-life, it is in perfect harmony with the principles of
causality and biogenesis.

In a nutshell, this Seed Theory of Creation is a unifying cosmological model
that provides a solid foundation on which the superstructure of a new world
order can be erected.

In its light we can provide highly plausible explanations for the greatest
mysteries of the Universe. Now we know that human life exists because it is
immortal, being the Initial Seed or Cosmological Constant of the Universe.
Also we know that the Universe exists because the Initial Seed generated the
cosmic system by a series of progressive steps for the purpose of
self-reproduction. The Cosmic Seed's field of life energy is constant, but
the cosmic structure that develops within that halo of life field
continually changes.

The revelations we have indicate that the purpose of our Cosmic Common
Ancestor is to provide the best possible conditions for human beings, so
that they can bring themselves closer to His own perfection.

Based on cosmology's Tree of Life we may infer that the cycle of life's
manifestation begins with a most complex and Perfect Seed, and ends in a
most complex and Perfect Seed. Because the Generative Seed of the Universe
is perpetual, the Universe is subject to an infinite number of cycles.
Creation follows dissolution endlessly. In other words the Common Ancestor,
being the Initial Seed of our Universe, not only projects the Universe out
of His seed center, but also withdraws the Universe into His seed center.
When at the end of a life-cycle the Universe is dissolved, its life
principle or quintessence returns from its field state into its initial seed
state, i.e. to a phase of potentiality. It stays in that dormant state until
it feels again an inner urge or desire to produce offspring in its own
image.

This paradigm-shattering Living Cosmology implies that at the heart of the
Universe is neither a big bang, nor evolution from simplicity to complexity,
but perfect and all-embracing life and love in the form of an Immortal Seed
of human life.

The present scientific consensus may weight heavily against such a
conclusion. However rational reasoning from the solid facts makes it evident
that human life's immortality is indeed the quintessence of cosmology.
Because human life is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, no
Universe can exist in the absence of human life.

In one of his works Alfred North Whitehead described physics as the study of
smaller organisms and biology as the study of larger organisms. Now we may
add to these disciplines cosmology, and describe it as the study of the
largest organism.

Let me close with these words of wisdom:

"If you possess true knowledge, O Soul, you will understand that you are
akin to your Creator."--Hermes, the God of Wisdom

"Kazmer Ujvarosy" wrote in message
...

snip

Thus the fundamental "unknown agent" we are missing appears to be a Cosmic
Genome, which Genome generated the Universe for the production of human
life
in its own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production
of
seeds in its own image. This Seed Cosmology tells us that the initial
cause
of the Universe is a Cosmic Genome, and also the source of the basic
forces
and laws of nature. Because structure formation is the basic quality of
life, the Cosmic Genome explains the cosmic system's formation,
development
and energetic expansion, as well as the common origin of all forms of life
from that Cosmic Common Ancestor.

It's a nice idea, but if it's true, shouldn't we all be some sort of
mini-universes rather than human beings?
We can't really claim to be made in the image of the universe, can we? We
look absolutely nothing like it.


As you may see there is one crucial assumption in this Seed Cosmology: it
presupposes that the highest and most complex form of life that exists
constitutes the Initial Seed of the Universe. The purpose of the article
below is to point out that we have good empirical reasons to postulate
that
this is the case.

Kazmer Ujvarosy

Academia Consulting


Breakthrough in Cosmology

By Kazmer Ujvarosy

Whereas it is amusing to watch scientists dealing with a living Universe
which they are dead sure is dead, at the same time it is annoying, and I
think it is about time to bring that message home.



Modern cosmology is still not a proper science because its mathematical
models have no predictive power. The aim of quantum cosmogenesis is to
make
it predictive by finding a simple and convincing model that specifies
exactly the initial state of the Universe, and explains the generation of
the entire Universe in terms of that initial state. In essence the task is
to link the present cosmic structure or macrocosm to its microcosmic
origin,
and to make predictions based on the knowledge of that microcosmic origin.

According to Stephen Hawking [see
www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/quantum.html] the singularity theorems
show
that our Universe had a quantum origin, or popped into existence in a
quantum blip out of nothing, and therefore we need a theory of quantum
gravity to describe the process of creation, and to make testable
predictions. Also he finds the Anthropic Principle helpful in finding a
model that represents our Universe.

I shall argue that the present Universe, which indubitably yields life
forms
of great complexity, is reducible not to an inanimate initial singularity
or
quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex Initial Cosmic
Genome.
If this Seed Theory of Creation is correct-i.e. that an Initial Cosmic
Genome generated our Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of seeds in its
own
image-, then we don't need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the
process of creation, because the Universe does not have a quantum origin,
but a seed origin.

We can still talk of a seed without doing away with a quantum mechanical
explanation. The random state that ended up producing the universe can be
considered a seed. A random seed. Like the seed number for a fractal
pattern. Change the seed, and the entire pattern looks different, yet
related. The way the pattern will look when fully iterated can't be said to
reside within the formula, whether it is seeded or not.

Thus there is no need to treat the Universe as though it
were a quantum particle. Rather, we must treat it as a Cosmic Tree of Life
that unfolds from an Initial Cosmic Seed. We may consider the Initial
Cosmic
Seed uncreated and immortal, because the Universe has no power to act upon
the Initial Seed of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act
upon
the initial seed of its own origin.




The Tree Model



Earlier findings that our Universe had a beginning are still being
digested
by cosmology's mathematical models. If the Universe did not always exist,
where did it come from? What gave birth to the Universe? Birth or coming
into being is a sign of life.

Birth is, of course, but to say that the universe was born is to assume that
it can be considered a living creature.
It's a hypothesis, certainly, but not a readily testable one.

In our experience it implies invariably
unfoldment from a source of life. Animals unfold from reproductive cells,
and plants unfold from seeds. For some reason, however, the world's
celebrated cosmologists and theoreticians failed to give life a chance to
play any role in their models of the Universe. Their search for a
plausible
explanation yielded a paradigm that attempts to explain the birth,
structure
formation, and expansion, of our Universe in terms of a cataclysmic
explosion. The cause of that explosion, however, remains an open question.
In any case the big bang paradigm is still being celebrated all over the
world as the best model to represent our Universe.

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.


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.

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,

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.

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?

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.

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.




Because seeds have both particle and field properties, 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.


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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.


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).

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.


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.

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.


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. 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?






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."
And you expect anyone to actually take you seriously when you're sounding
like an utter crackpot? *That* would be a real miracle.


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?

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.

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?

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.


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?
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.
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.

snip the rest of what I now know to be screed - I wasn't sure at first, but
that changed

"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Kazmer Ujvarosy" wrote in message
...

snip

Thus the fundamental "unknown agent" we are missing appears to be a
Cosmic
Genome, which Genome generated the Universe for the production of human
life
in its own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the
production
of
seeds in its own image. This Seed Cosmology tells us that the initial
cause
of the Universe is a Cosmic Genome, and also the source of the basic
forces
and laws of nature. Because structure formation is the basic quality of
life, the Cosmic Genome explains the cosmic system's formation,
development
and energetic expansion, as well as the common origin of all forms of
life
from that Cosmic Common Ancestor.

It's a nice idea, but if it's true, shouldn't we all be some sort of
mini-universes rather than human beings?
We can't really claim to be made in the image of the universe, can we? We
look absolutely nothing like it.
-----------------
You are correct, we are sort of mini-universes, or rather microcosms of the
macrocosm, similarly as the seeds of a giant sequoia are the mini-universes
of the sequoia tree. Just because those tiny winged seeds look absolutely
nothing like the giant sequoia does not means that they are not the image of
that initial seed which generated the giant sequoia for the purpose of
self-reproduction.
-----------------

As you may see there is one crucial assumption in this Seed Cosmology:
it
presupposes that the highest and most complex form of life that exists
constitutes the Initial Seed of the Universe. The purpose of the article
below is to point out that we have good empirical reasons to postulate
that
this is the case.

Kazmer Ujvarosy

Academia Consulting


Breakthrough in Cosmology

By Kazmer Ujvarosy

Whereas it is amusing to watch scientists dealing with a living Universe
which they are dead sure is dead, at the same time it is annoying, and I
think it is about time to bring that message home.



Modern cosmology is still not a proper science because its mathematical
models have no predictive power. The aim of quantum cosmogenesis is to
make
it predictive by finding a simple and convincing model that specifies
exactly the initial state of the Universe, and explains the generation
of
the entire Universe in terms of that initial state. In essence the task
is
to link the present cosmic structure or macrocosm to its microcosmic
origin,
and to make predictions based on the knowledge of that microcosmic
origin.

According to Stephen Hawking [see
www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/quantum.html] the singularity theorems
show
that our Universe had a quantum origin, or popped into existence in a
quantum blip out of nothing, and therefore we need a theory of quantum
gravity to describe the process of creation, and to make testable
predictions. Also he finds the Anthropic Principle helpful in finding a
model that represents our Universe.

I shall argue that the present Universe, which indubitably yields life
forms
of great complexity, is reducible not to an inanimate initial
singularity
or
quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex Initial Cosmic
Genome.
If this Seed Theory of Creation is correct-i.e. that an Initial Cosmic
Genome generated our Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of seeds in its
own
image-, then we don't need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the
process of creation, because the Universe does not have a quantum
origin,
but a seed origin.

We can still talk of a seed without doing away with a quantum mechanical
explanation. The random state that ended up producing the universe can be
considered a seed. A random seed. Like the seed number for a fractal
pattern. Change the seed, and the entire pattern looks different, yet
related. The way the pattern will look when fully iterated can't be said
to
reside within the formula, whether it is seeded or not.
---------------------
The belief that a random state ended up producing the universe and life
violates the principle of causality. The assumption is that randomness
somehow can generate what it definitely does not have, namely greater order
or complexity. I'd like to see any demonstrable evidence in support of that
assumption. In reality there is no way to demonstrate that randomness on its
own has the potential to generate more complex patterns than itself.
Theoretically only randomness itself, in the total absence of any
complexity, could demonstrate to itself that it indeed can generate more
complex patterns than itself. Any human involvement would only demonstrate
that human life has the potential to generate patterns of lesser complexity
than itself. In the presence of life it would be a delusion on the grandest
scale to argue that randomness on its own generated greater orders of
complexity than itself.

You try to equate a random state with a seed. In fact a seed is the opposite
of a random state. A seed contains the genetic information for the
production of a highly complex living system, what no random state has.
-------------------------
Thus there is no need to treat the Universe as though it
were a quantum particle. Rather, we must treat it as a Cosmic Tree of
Life
that unfolds from an Initial Cosmic Seed. We may consider the Initial
Cosmic
Seed uncreated and immortal, because the Universe has no power to act
upon
the Initial Seed of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act
upon
the initial seed of its own origin.




The Tree Model



Earlier findings that our Universe had a beginning are still being
digested
by cosmology's mathematical models. If the Universe did not always
exist,
where did it come from? What gave birth to the Universe? Birth or coming
into being is a sign of life.

Birth is, of course, but to say that the universe was born is to assume
that
it can be considered a living creature.
It's a hypothesis, certainly, but not a readily testable one.

In our experience it implies invariably
unfoldment from a source of life. Animals unfold from reproductive
cells,
and plants unfold from seeds. For some reason, however, the world's
celebrated cosmologists and theoreticians failed to give life a chance
to
play any role in their models of the Universe. Their search for a
plausible
explanation yielded a paradigm that attempts to explain the birth,
structure
formation, and expansion, of our Universe in terms of a cataclysmic
explosion. The cause of that explosion, however, remains an open
question.
In any case the big bang paradigm is still being celebrated all over the
world as the best model to represent our Universe.

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

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.
-------------------
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. 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?
--------------------
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. 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.
-------------------
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.
-----------------



Because seeds have both particle and field properties, 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.
--------------

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


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?
-------------

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. So if any statement is in line with reality, that statement tells
the truth, no matter what label you give to it, be it science or religion.
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.
----------------
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, I'm interested in the facts. 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.
------------
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.
-----------

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, 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.
---------------
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.
------------

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


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. 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.
-----------------





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.
--------------
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.
--------------

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.
-------------
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. 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? 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, then in your
fuzzy mind it is an evidenceless speculation that a single seed generated
the giant sequoia for the purpose of self-reproduction. After all you
believe, in your state of delusion, that complexity is the product of
simplicity, that life is the product of non-life.
-------------

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. What more can I say about your 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?
-------------
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.
-------------
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. Your footing is belief in non-life's
miraculous creative abilities. 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. However if you feel you have to discuss anything, please do not
hesitate to get in touch with your nearest head doctor.

Have a nice day.

"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.