Why and how did life come about?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 193
#91
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
.
OMG, should we worry about the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, Miss Tradesecret, because it has been 11 days 


I did prophesy page 2


 another dereliction.#40
#92
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
OMG, should we worry about the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, Miss Tradesecret, because it has been 11  days 

Now 15 Brother D.

It may be the case of  him retiring to his farm for a while to have a mumble to himself and think about how and where he had gone so disastrously wrong.
#93
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form?
We have no evidence that biologic life ( * I * ) came from before where there was none.

We have no evidence that our finite, occupied space Universe (@) came from where before there exists only truly non-occupied space.

..." The genetic code includes 64 possible permutations, or combinations, of three-letter nucleotide sequences that can be made from the four nucleotides. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.

64 + 2 poles of system = 66

66.4 = Cosmic Pi-Time ---Pi^3 } { XYZ/abc minus P^4 { dt } = 66.4---

66 lines-of-relationship exist for 12  --3 * 4--   vertexes or nodal events aka points

66.4 / 3.14 15 92 65..... = 21.13 57 7 64 66 75....

21.13 57 7 64 66 75 / 7 = 3.01 93 96 63....

7 = agent of change via irrational angles 128.7 of a regular and convex heptagon 

128.7 / 7 = 18.38 57 1 42 85 7 14 28 5 71 42 8 5714 repeat all eternally except for the initial stable 3 on irrational side of decimal

3 = structural integrity via 60 degreeness  /\ and is stability

4 = systemic integrity via 90 degreeness  [  ] and is transformation  LINK

4-fold Vector Equlibrium has 7 axi via di-polar set of  8 surface triangles /\ ergo 4 diametric axi of spin  and 6 surface squares [  ], ergo 3 diametric axis of spin

(@) = eternally regenerative, finite, occupied space Universe, ergo, begin with the whole and no parts can be excluded from our consideration.

What is the minimal number that can represent the greatest whole? 7?

12 + 2  14  = rhombic dodecahedron LINK and it is dual to the Vector Equlibrium

Rhombic Tricontahedron LINK

.." The rhombic triacontahedron is somewhat special in being one of the nine  --3 * 3---  edge-transitive convex polyhedra, the others being the five Platonic solids, the cuboctahedron, the icosidodecahedron, and the rhombic dodecahedron.

....The rhombic triacontahedron is also interesting in that its vertices include the arrangement of four Platonic solids. It contains ten tetrahedra, five cubes, an icosahedron and a dodecahedron. The centers of the faces contain five octahedra.

....It can be made from a truncated octahedron by dividing the hexagonal faces into 3 rhombi:"...

Egg/ovum (o)

Spermazoa <----

...." The DNA of life on Earth naturally stores its information in just four key chemicals — guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, commonly referred to as G, C, A and T, respectively.

....Now scientists have doubled this number of life’s building blocks, creating for the first time a synthetic, eight-letter genetic language that seems to store and transcribe information just like natural DNA...."



#94
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


YOUR QUOTE RELATING TO THE #1 BIBLE FOOL, "MISS TRADESECRET:  "It may be the case of  him retiring to his farm for a while to have a mumble to himself and think about how and where he had gone so disastrously wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOUP2TrG9T4 "

Yes, good ol' Jack is more than likely showing what Miss Tradesecret is going through after being Bible Slapped Silly®️ in her own thread by you and me, and the membership.

Whereas, my two links below was the final nail in Miss Tradesecret's coffin:


Furthermore, your links below was the finishing touch in Miss Tradesecret's metaphorical burial:


God Damn it, if Miss Tradesecret doesn't return for obvious reasons, then what pseudo-christian are we going to use to make an example of equal to Miss Tradesecret as being the #1 Bible fool of this prestigious forum?

I am sure you noticed that Miss Tradesecret, AND YouFound_Lxam have been silent "together" at this time, hmmmmmm.


.
#95
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

God Damn it, if Miss Tradesecret doesn't return for obvious reasons

Did s/he ever go away Brother D.  ?

Topic's author
#96
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak faith that is threatened by the theory of evolution. 
Hi SW,

I  reject that premise in its entirety.  

Firstly, what entails faith being weak or strong? And why would it be an issue?  Paul talks about those who eat meat and those who are concerned about eating meat dedicated to idols.   He doesn't say that their faith is being threatened. Perhaps he could have.  In our time, alcohol is another issue. People who drink alcohol choose not to for the sake of those who think it is wrong to do so. But whose faith is weaker? Is it those who are choosing to drink or those refusing to drink out of perceived obedience? Or is it the person who drinks without care for those who might be weak?  

Let's apply that now to the theory of evolution.  Is it a weaker faith for someone to hold to a view or to push a particular view?  Does faith in science means there is a lesser faith in God? Or is there another way to measure such faith? Or such mix? 

For the record, I don't feel threatened by the theory of evolution. I think it is wrong. And I also think it is untouchable in our modern society. No one is allowed to question it.  That makes it suspect.  

Do I question gravity? At times. But gravity is a different kind of theory - since it is actually observable. I can test it in my own life time. The theory of evolution - is a mishmash of ideas that are in contrast to its original position. As a creationist, I have no issue with adaption, mutation, maturation, etc.  All these things I consider to be part of God's ongoing plan for creation.  And for the most part these things can be tested. Yet when creationists disagree with evolution it is not with these things that they disagree - but primarily in relation to the crossover of kinds. And the age of the earth. 

In respect of the age of the earth, tricky.  Yet how can one ever be confident that such measures of the age are true.  Yes we can certainly get several - different measures and if they tend to agree - like a cluster that might provide some confidence.   And for those who have great faith in science or perhaps blind faith that might work for them.  We can observe some of these things - such as rings on trees, or ice levels on glaziers. We can certainly estimate many things to arrive a conclusion we already are partially in general agreement with. 

Yet, until we actually develop a Time Machine, there can be no absolute certainty.  I don't have a particular issue with God creating a mature universe which has all of the various times inbuilt. I don't think it is deceptive to do so. Any more than creating a mature man like Adam was not deceptive.  How old was Adam when the Bible says he was created?  Not a baby. So if was a mature human of say - 30 or 40 in appearance is that deceptive of God? 

What about the light that comes from the sun - or further stars which to arrive - must mean the stars are millions if not billions of years old.  Obviously, this must mean the earth is old - or the universe is very old. Yet why? 

Let's imagine for just one moment - that God in his power and glory decided to make the earth and the stars today.  And he wanted the people on the earth to have light .  Would he make the sun and the stars billions of years ago - and let humans live in darkness for billions of years - in order for them not to feel deceived? That is your argument and to be honest - respectively it is a dumb one,. 

I think God is bigger than all that.  

Just for the record as well, I don't have an issue with the first couple of chapters of Genesis being poetry or language depicting a framework of the creation.  I just don't have a valid reason to discount the original telling of the story.  Besides Jesus, took the view that Adam and Eve were real people - and that it was in the beginning.  

I also raised this topic to discuss alternative positions.  There are many things about the secular understanding of how the universe came about that simply beggars belief.  I don't have to feel threatened to question it. I think real science requires people question it.  Yet today - most scientists simply believe what they have read in a book - text books, and what their priests have told them to believe - lecturers - and they are told "don't question it".  It is fact.  Me, I don't just believe whatever I read in a book or what my priests tell me. I like to question and to critique. It seems to me that you start with science and then try and marry it up with your theology. That's a matter for you of course.  But not everyone works that way - or wants to. And that is ok. It doesn't make their faith stronger or weaker. That dear SW was a total red herring and unhelpful comment. 

You need to be able to articulate where sin came from? And also how Jesus death on the cross and resurrection was able to remedy this?  
#97
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ Tradesecret.

 Yet today - most scientists simply believe what they have read in a book -

 Idiot!
It's the scientist that write those books and build on the back of others scientist that also wrote books.


and what their priests have told them to believe - lecturers - and they are told "don't question it".

Hypocrite! 
It is you that tells us that you are a" Pastor and the Chaplain"#20. Do you tell your congregation of over 300 not to believe you? And what about all of those  learned men that you tell us that you ,  "  studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91
And aren't you also a lecturer to students yourself?#20




 It is fact.  Me, I don't just believe whatever I read in a book or what my priests tell me.

The bible is a book you clown. A book that you proclaim and promote as being " flawless  well established". #110

And go on tell tell us;

Tradesecret wrote:
"The bible is a very real book and sometimes hard book. I think that adds to its character and integrity". 
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4651-your-least-favorite-bible-story?page=1&post_number=3

Tradesecret wrote:
"Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all.  It is clear. Crystal clear in fact".

Tradesecret wrote:
"The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate".

And say:


Me, I don't just believe whatever I read in a book or what my priests tell me.

 So on the one hand you have taken decades of training under the most learned people possible in the theological field including the bible,  but tell us on the other hand "  Me, I don't just believe whatever I read in a book or what my priests tell me"#96. 🤣 all while preaching the BIBLE & RELIGION &GOD to your congregation of over 300!

Tradesecret wrote:
"I am a pastor of a church with over 300 people"#67


I like to question and to critique.

 As do I Reverend. But you just don't like it, especially when I show you for the lying bible dulcet dunce that you actually are.
For you Reverend it is an impossibility to hold any type of debate or even a simple discussion on the scriptures. 


One has to wonder why you took the time to:

Tradesecret wrote: " I have memorised the bible from a very young age, I know it backwards and in many languages.", #52 . 
One has to ask, why waste your time? It has in no way served you at all in your chosen field among the many other fields that you tell us that you are highly trained educated in. Maybe you should have stuck with the sheep and or cow fields on your farm ... I should imagine you are quite at home amongst all that bullshit.

#98
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET,  PRAISE JESUS YOU HAVE RETURNED!!!

Wow,  let us take a breather, whew, where we thought that you were not going to return like those other times when you were Bible Slapped Silly®️ you ran away and hid for months!

Stephen, myself, and others were worried in the fact that how can we replace you in being the #1 Bible stupid and ignorant fool!  Therefore, good to see you back again, and I hope that you had a great Christmas, even though December 25th wasn't Jesus' birthday to begin with, as I am sure you preached to your congregation, praise!

In your absence, personally, I am sorry to make you the Bible fool in your own thread  while you were away. But, as you know by now, it's part of the territory that you have to accept upon this Religion Forum.

Thank you Jesus, you have answered my prayers in Miss Tradesecret finally returning to her place of ridicule!!!

.
#99
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

I am sure you will agree with my post #98 in the fact that Miss Tradesecret has returned, therefore we don't have to look for another pseudo-christian like her to be the #1 Bible stupid and ignorant fool upon this forum, praise!  

In your revealing post #97, you have once again shown Miss Tradesecret in what an outright Bible HYPOCRITE and LIAR she truly is, and because of this FACT, you welcomed her back to DEBATEART!   

Isn't it wonderful that she has banned us, therefore making it more easy to show her Bible ignorance where we don't have to wade through her copious amounts of excuses in not to address our superior knowledge of the Bible over her pre-school knowledge of same?  I just wish she had banned us a lot earlier in this respect.

Anyway, Jesus and I are awaiting for her Bible ignorance to make itself known again, to easily pounce upon it so as she can continue to be the #1 Bible fool upon this forum because this is the ONLY thing that she in known for!  LOL!
.
#100
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Molly Cula is Dra's sister.

They drink coke.
#101
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@Tradesecret

Tradesecret wrote @@zedvictor4 Most things in life- that people do - are never scrutinised by science - and have no need to. #76

Tradesecret, you write some of the most profoundly ridiculous things.

Let me tell you, that every single aspect of human life has been studied and scrutinised by human science and written about from the time of human intercourse, conception, growth unto death. There have been millions of words written by human scientists on the subject of human sexual intercourse alone.
 then we have;
Human Embryonic Development.
Human Infancy.
Human Childhood.
Human Teenage Development.
Human Adulthood.
Human Death, and everything in-between. Such as  what, why and when humans do , think and act in certain ways. And there is function of every single human organ all studied and scrutinised by human scientists. Then there is human behaviour that has also been studied and scrutinised by human scientists.

Every single time that you attempt to come across as some sort of philosophical intellectual you fall on your own sword every single time..

Take your quote above @zedvictor4 #76 . You say ;


"Most things in life- that people do - are never scrutinised by science - and have no need to".

"have no need to" you say.  Yet here you are asking starting a topic asking "Why and how did life come about?"  Why do you feel the "need" to ask such a question such as that!?  It is a scientific question from someone (YOU) that isn't even a scientist!

You are the only circus clown that I know that asks -  "why are people laughing at me"? < Maybe a scientist can answer that for you?





#102
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE OF THE TRUTH TO MISS TRADESECRET: "Tradesecret, you write some of the most profoundly ridiculous things.

What did you expect, she is a woman!  “The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing.” (Proverbs 9:13)

Zeus only knows why she continues to be even scientific stupid, along with her Bible stupidity, as being the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum. 
Because Miss Tradesecret's Bible ignorance has abandoned Jesus as her God, then I made mention in her now having to believe in Zeus.

One of my "Thomasisms" is that stupid people don't know they are stupid, because of the simple fact that they are stupid!  Case in point, Miss Tradesecret.

.


#103
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
It had to come intelligently. "Abiogenesis" does not exist, we have never witnessed it in either nature or in a lab. We may have made a few "life particles" but:
  • A lot more toxic stuff was produced
  • It is not even close to the amount of that stuff a cell has in it.

Topic's author
#104
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ebuc
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form?
We have no evidence that biologic life ( * I * ) came from before where there was none.
That makes logical sense.  Obviously before there was life, there could be none.  Although it is an argument from silence. 

We have no evidence that our finite, occupied space Universe (@) came from where before there exists only truly non-occupied space.
Perhaps, but isn't that an argument from silence.  Pretty weak argument. 


..." The genetic code includes 64 possible permutations, or combinations, of three-letter nucleotide sequences that can be made from the four nucleotides. Of the 64 codons, 61 represent amino acids, and three are stop signals.

64 + 2 poles of system = 66

66.4 = Cosmic Pi-Time ---Pi^3 } { XYZ/abc minus P^4 { dt } = 66.4---

66 lines-of-relationship exist for 12  --3 * 4--   vertexes or nodal events aka points

66.4 / 3.14 15 92 65..... = 21.13 57 7 64 66 75....

21.13 57 7 64 66 75 / 7 = 3.01 93 96 63....

7 = agent of change via irrational angles 128.7 of a regular and convex heptagon  

128.7 / 7 = 18.38 57 1 42 85 7 14 28 5 71 42 8 5714 repeat all eternally except for the initial stable 3 on irrational side of decimal

3 = structural integrity via 60 degreeness  /\ and is stability

4 = systemic integrity via 90 degreeness  [  ] and is transformation  LINK 

4-fold Vector Equlibrium has 7 axi via di-polar set of  8 surface triangles /\ ergo 4 diametric axi of spin  and 6 surface squares [  ], ergo 3 diametric axis of spin

(@) = eternally regenerative, finite, occupied space Universe, ergo, begin with the whole and no parts can be excluded from our consideration.

What is the minimal number that can represent the greatest whole? 7?

12 + 2  14  = rhombic dodecahedron LINK and it is dual to the Vector Equlibrium

Rhombic Tricontahedron LINK 

.." The rhombic triacontahedron is somewhat special in being one of the nine  --3 * 3---  edge-transitive convex polyhedra, the others being the five Platonic solids, the cuboctahedron, the icosidodecahedron, and the rhombic dodecahedron.

....The rhombic triacontahedron is also interesting in that its vertices include the arrangement of four Platonic solids. It contains ten tetrahedra, five cubes, an icosahedron and a dodecahedron. The centers of the faces contain five octahedra.

....It can be made from a truncated octahedron by dividing the hexagonal faces into 3 rhombi:"...

Egg/ovum (o)

Spermazoa <----

...." The DNA of life on Earth naturally stores its information in just four key chemicals — guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, commonly referred to as G, C, A and T, respectively.

....Now scientists have doubled this number of life’s building blocks, creating for the first time a synthetic, eight-letter genetic language that seems to store and transcribe information just like natural DNA...."
Doesn't all of that simply suggest that the universe and life is not random? And that some kind of law, whether that be mathematical or other existed that exists in the very fabric of everything?    How did said mathematical equations and laws evolve? Or did they originate and remain consistent from the beginning.  One of the interesting things about some people relying so heavily on evolution is - it didn't include the scientific laws and physics and mathematics in its framework. I wonder why that is the case?  That some things appear to evolve or grow and mature, and others things just somehow "randomly" came into existence or were perhaps always there?   

#105
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
That makes logical sense.  Obviously before there was life, there could be none.  Although it is an argument from silence.
Yout dont understand.  We have no evidence of any orgins of bioologic life. All we know is, that it exists, ergo, to best of our knowledge it has existed eternally, since we have no evidence of and origin. Understand?
 

ebuc...We have no evidence that our finite, occupied space Universe (@) came from where before there exists only truly non-occupied space.
Perhaps, but isn't that an argument from silence.  Pretty weak argument. 
Huh? You dont seem to grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics, naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally and this translates over to our finite occupied space Universe. Understand? It is simple.

Doesn't all of that simply suggest that the universe and life is not random?
It suggests, what Ive repeatedly pointed out in this forum and others for 25 or more years.  Our finite, occupied space Universe is eternally regenerative, and eternally complemented by physical laws and cosmic principles. Random is moot point.  There is no randomness or chaos, there is only humans inability --for various reasons---, to find the cause and effect order at ultra-macro and ultra-micro scales of existence.

And that some kind of law, whether that be mathematical or other existed that exists in the very fabric of everything?
The two complement each other. Occupied space Universe complemented by physical { cosmic } law and cosmic principles


  How did said mathematical equations and laws evolve?
They do not evolve. Where do you get such a silly idea? Eternally existent. Simple. No need to make what is simple unnecessarily complex. It is an ego thing to do so.
Or did they originate and remain consistent from the beginning.  
There is not origin and there is no beginning. You dont seem to grasp the simplicity of eternal existence.Both occupied space and the complementary cosmic laws and cosmic principles. Simple. Not complex to grasp. All else is just ego fluffing

One of the interesting things about some people relying so heavily on evolution is - it didn't include the scientific laws and physics and mathematics in its framework. I wonder why that is the case?  That some things appear to evolve or grow and mature, and others things just somehow "randomly" came into existence or were perhaps always there?

The only direct evidence we have of evolution is with bacteria, and I dunno if there is clear evidence of that evolution being only lateral, or,

complex-to-simple. If it is simple-to-complex bacteria evolution, please show me the evidence. 


#106
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
No one has answered with. 
Well it was over a period of 6 days some 6000 years ago.   
Or Adam and Eve 

Do you reckon we could rule that option out. ?


No but. 
The way that we can't prove evolution differs alot to 
The way we can't prove god hey? 

Actually it is funny comparing those two 
#107
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
When a mommy and a daddy love each other alot , they have ummmmm.   relations. 
Thus creating life. A wee little bay bay..

Well i think thats how it works. 
And thats a fitting answer to , (  how did life come about )  posted under the forum ( Religion ) 
How did life come about asked in the phil forum is a toats diffrent question.
Or is it.  
#108
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
How did life come about posted in the religion forum.  ( Immaculate conception ) 
#109
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Prediction.  
In a few million years time we will be able to prove evolution. 
Proving a god exists is going to take a lot longer then that. 
#110
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull

God, in most religions, is supposed to be omnibenevolent (all-loving), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). It's most likely our Universe was created by Lucifer , who likes to see rich beautiful people having sex.  OMG, this explains Trump.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
From your contributions on this site, it is very likely Trump indeed gave you life. Perhaps you were dead before and he gave you a reason to live?
#112
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
it is very likely Trump indeed gave you life.

OMG, are you saying Ivanka is my sister?
#113
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
There is no shame in being a one trick pony good sir.
#114
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
I like to think of it analogous to lightning starting a fire in a forest. The general observable rule of the universe is that everything naturally is more likely to become disordered rather than ordered. This is reflected in everything from an expanding universe, dying stars, corrosion, erosion and decay, and of course, death of life. On an atomic level energy, is constantly trying to escape and all compounds are in a long process of breaking down from complex forms to basic forms.

So in a forest, there is a very small chance for lightning to start a fire, but when it does, it goes through a cycle of consumption, reproduction, and finally extinction. I tend to see life as a similar cycle. We are but sparks of accidental flame in an otherwise vast cold and sparkless universe.
#115
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
And Can these or this ummmm,  sparks of accidental flame if you will, effect it ?     ( im not sure what " it " is )

On what size picture? 



No but thats beautiful man. 
Nice post. 


#116
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@Deb-8-a-bull
I would suggest, that for some reason or not.

Running parallel with the process of universal decline and innate material decay, is the process of material evolution. Whereby the processes of material function are harnessed and developed. 

We are a part of this.

I refer to this as the GOD principle.

But not to be confused with the floaty about bloke of Middle Eastern folk tales.
#117
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
@zedvictor4
Running parallel with the process of universal decline and innate material decay,
Aka entropy....< out >....dissipating, dis-integrating, Universe coming apart as one very large and very flat { long frequency } photon.

is the process of material evolution.
Aka syntropy, ....> in <....i.e. opposite of entropy. See black holes (((>o<))) below

Whereby the processes of material function are harnessed and developed. 
Aka Spirit-1 Meta-space, { mind/intellect/concepts } and ego { i-dentity }

Naught { energy aka physical reality /\/\/ or Spirit-2  }  is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed { fermions < > < >bosons }. Grasp the 1st law of thermodynamics.

1} Then transfer the above statement as follows...Occupied space Universe { @ }  is neither created, nor destroyed, only transformed.

2} Biologic life { * } is composed of left-handed amino-acids, that, have been surmised  --from direct evidence--  to exist in some metorites, ergo, outer space aka extraterrestrial origins.

3} There is some direct evidence in lab experiments of reproducing forces of metorite-like impacts on sandy soils that create peptides. LINK 
....3a}  this above, provided the building blocks as a resultant of termendous inward { >in< } pressures that facillited biologic life origins o nEarth.

...4} Roger Penros'se nobel winning, single page paper { 1965 } proved that Einsteins GRelativety leads to null geodesics i.e. photon trajectories ending nowhere ergo destroyed aka singularities. S Hawking and Penrose went on to theorize, that, our finite Universe is spawned from a black hole.

5}   Whereas Fuller had no specifics for his generalised cosmic egg, I believe that all that exists, or can exist, is encoded in some black holes { or sum total collection of all black holes } ....(((>o<)))......i.e. occupied space as:

Gravitational (><)(><) Dark Energy fields, that, are beyond energy/physical reality ergo, I  label as meta-physical that can also be labeled as Spirit-3 (  )  >< Spirit-4 )(.

Naught is created nor destroyed only  transformed from Spirit-3 and Spirit-4 into Spirit-2, etc eternally.
#118
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
opposite of entropy. See black holes

Even black holes die.

#119
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Even black holes die.
We have no direct evidence of origins of biological life, and after many years of human mind doing experiements, humans have not created biologic life. They have created left-handed{?} amino-acids back in 60's.  See Miller experiments. LINK

..." However, there was a slight complication to Miller's results. Miller's brew of amino acids was a racemic mixture : approximately 50% of amino acids were in the laevorotatory form (left-handed orientation), and 50% were in the dextrorotatory form (right-handed orientation) [2]. It is a well-known fact that virtually all of observable life is composed of 100% L-amino acids "...
...
Ive been following information regarding black holes for many years ---ex Hawking evaporation-- , ergo, my speculations about what is contained within them, that, is also being expressed on their seemingly, 2D event horizon

So much of what we dont know about  black holes leaves room for  lots of cosmic speculation.  As I and others clearly do.

Via your given URL:

1}..." While the nugget would be extremely exotic, it would at least retain all the information that fell into the original black hole, thereby solving the paradox."

2} ..." These "naked singularities" appear to be forbidden in normal general relativity, but if they exist, they would be direct windows into the realm of quantum gravity. " ergo,

...2a}... Read or re-read my post #117 ...' is encoded in some black holes { or sum total collection of all black holes } ....(((>o<)))......i.e. occupied space '..and,

...2b}...'  Gravitational (><)(><) Dark Energy fields, that, are beyond energy/physical reality ergo, I  label as meta-physical that can also be labeled as Spirit-3 (  )  >< Spirit-4 )(.'...

So OGP, no where in the URL you posted does it say black holes die. Hawking evaporation at event horizon is old news, is if that is what your trying to point out. You do not quote any statement from the URL, that, you provided...." But Hawking radiation itself doesn't carry any information with it, and yet the black hole eventually disappears. So where did all the information go?

3} Naught is created nor destroyed only  transformed from Spirit-3 Gravity and Spirit-4 Dark Energy into Spirit-2 { fermions and bosons }, etc eternally. You dont seem to grasp this simple cosmic scenario, that, is  transferred from 1st law of thermodynamics, by me.

OGP, thanks for the URL, and please come back when you have any info that actually would dispute with logic, common sense critical thinking my scenarios, as presented.

Field of Gravity (  ) and  )( Dark Energy field, ergo,  (><)(><) we have torus without the spirit-2 { /\/\/ } physical reality inside quantum space-time torus tube, if only for the briefest moment, or with only half { \ } of the beginnings of the first quantum reality sine-wave \/\/\ and what I call observed time or quantification of time/motion/spin/precession { gyroscopic }/inside-outing ergo, fundamental motions associated with our observed/quantised, energy based physical reality { spirit-2 }.

Again, for clarity sake, I speculate that biologic life fundamentals are eternally encoded in the Gravitational and Dark Energy fields, from which our physical reality { spirit-2 /\/\/  } is a resultant of those two. (> /\/\/ <)(> /\/\/ <)

#120
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Okay, I will dumb it down for you.

Ordering systems requires expenditures of already existing energy. Due to the conservation principle, as mass increases, energy decreases. As the mass of a black hole increases, the energy of a black hole decreases. Less energy in a system means less ability to remain ordered. Or in layman's terms: dead.

The origins of the universe never ponder the creation of mass, but the creation of the massive amounts of energy that is perpetually in decline throughout the known universe due to ever increasing entropy.