Click the link and find out...and place an easy vote.
If Abiogenesis and Creationism Had A Fight, Who Would Win?
Posts
Total:
22
Black hole (X) as cosmic egg (XYX) is my vote for eternally existent SPACE-coding RNA-DNA humans (*X*)
* * = consciousness
(*X*) = human RNA-DNA coding withing black hole and its event horizon surface
\__/ = bosons ---parrallel bisection---
We may say that Universe is based on a 3-fold, cosmic fourness, that has hexagonal associations via 4-fold asymmetry
That still leaves for consideration, 5-fold{ icosahedral } ergo phi { 1.618 golden mean }
Pi { 3.14 } is the most-abstract-connection between 3-fold, 4-fold and 5-fold
1.9 40 66 7 49 0 72 92 95 = phi { 3.14 / 1.618 }
I take note of #7 falling in 7th overall positioning as I do in the following;
31.00 62 7 66 80 2998 = Pi^3{ XYZ aka 3D }
24.35 22 7 27 58 50 06 09 = Pi^4{ XYZ...t.. } /4 { renormalization of time to 3D }
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there connection to 66 or as 66.4 as associated with time
66.40 90 9 10 34 00 24 = Pi^4 - 31 { 5-fold primary set of great circles left or right, not both sets of 31 }
31.00 62 7 66 80 2998
0.51 52 8 66 24 20 = 1.618 { phi } / 3.14 { Pi }
-->
@MagicAintReal
It does not appear that your definition of creationism is incompatible with your definition of abiogenesis.
Something { occupied space } does not come from nothing { non-occupied space }
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect ---ex mathematics-- exists in complement to both of the aforementioned above set of eternally existent, complementaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(--) = Pi { 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 }
Pi { 3.14 } may contain the most-abstract-connection between 3-fold tetra{4}hedron, 4-fold octa{8}hedron/cube and 5-fold icosa{20}hedron set of 87-73 primary axis spun symmetrys.
Phi = 1.61 8 0 33 98 87 49 89 48 48 20 aka golden ratio
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.9 40 66 7 49 0 72 92 95 = Pi divided by phi { 3.14 / 1.618 }
I take note of #7 falling in 7th overall positioning as I do in the following;
31.00 62 7 66 80 2998 = Pi^3{ XYZ aka 3D }
24.35 22 7 27 58 50 06 09 = Pi^4{ XYZ...t.. } /4
...here in latter above, I do a renormalization process of 4D time{ see below Pi^4 } back to being a 3D{ XYZ only } Pi-based numerical value....
97.40 90 9 10 34 00 24 = Pi^4 i.e. Pi to the 4th power includes XYZ 3D considerations.
So, if I remove the Pi based, XYZ{ 3D } value of 31 we are left with only the 4th part the time value aspect of Pi^4 power. see as follows below how we arrive at 66.4 value for time
66.40 90 9 10 34 00 24 = Pi^4 - 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.51 52 8 66 24 20 = 1.618{phi{5}} / 3.14 { Pi }
1.9 41 65 18 25 45 7 22 = Pi{ 3.14 } / phi{ 3.618}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That still leaves for consideration, 5-fold{ icosahedral } ergo phi { 1.618 golden mean } as it has;
12 potentia,l penta{ '5' }gons and,
15 potentia, phi-based rectangles.
0.51 52 8 66 24 20 = 1.618{phi{5}} / 3.14 { Pi }
1.9 41 65 18 25 45 7 22 = Pi{ 3.14 } / phi{ 3.618}
'5'.0 83 0 96 91 35 0 82 8 = Pi{3.14} * phi{1.618}
This is almost a atheism vs theism debate. There will always be a bit of bias on the vote.
Il Diavolo
-->
@secularmerlin
"Rather than by natural processes"
-->
@MagicAintReal
Please explain how some god(s) if any exists would be not be part of nature.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well some gods would be a part of nature, I concede that, but typically when one discusses with a creationist they don't believe that natural processes bring about life, so before they accept a debate they must agree that creationism is necessarily "rather than natural processes."
-->
@MagicAintReal
If some god(s) are a part of nature then your definition needs adjusting.
-->
@secularmerlin
Agreed, but when the definition includes "specific acts of divinity" we're not talking about natural entities anymore, are we?
"rather than by natural processes" and "specific acts of divinity" necessarily exclude the natural gods/deities.
"rather than by natural processes" and "specific acts of divinity" necessarily exclude the natural gods/deities.
What is a "specific act of divinity"? Indeed what is "devinity"? Is it not a part of nature should it exist at all?
-->
@secularmerlin
What is a "specific act of divinity"? Indeed what is "devinity"? Is it not a part of nature should it exist at all?
Biological existence is act of divinity and more specifically complex humans with their metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual ability to conceptually place themselves outside of a conceptually finite l Universe as if they were a God.
All that exists ---ex Cosmic Trinity-- is nature, if not specifically just all occupied Space
Di = greek for two { 2 }
Vine = : a plant whose stem requires support and which climbs by tendrils or twining or creeps along the ground
Vines ex English ivy, Poison ivy, Maypole { virginia creeper } all will grow vertically on any tree, post etc. Why? To get closer to sunlight?
Woman {Xx } 2{ di } sex chromosomes
Man { Xy } 2{ di } sex chromosomes
Vertical |__ is to live as horizontal ___ is to die.
Compare intelligent design with abiogenesis instead of creationism
-->
@Fallaneze
Same smell.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Different methodologies.
-->
@Fallaneze
Neither have methodologies, so they are the same.
-->
@MagicAintReal
"Is intelligent design creationism?"
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case
"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?"
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed
-->
@Fallaneze
Both claim an intelligent designer behind actually natural processes.
Both seek to retrofit science with an intelligent designer.
Both start their approaches assuming an intelligent designer exists and must be responsible for everything, no matter what they find to the contrary.
Creationism and ID are like Bald and Hairless.
Theyre the same attempt to argue god.
-->
@Fallaneze
Intelligent design and creationism have equal evidence going for them and both include the idea that lifeless matter became living organisms so both are subsets of abiogenesis. The only discussion I think is how the abiogenesis occurred. The truth is we don't know how life began but life itself is not an argument for any god(s) and even less for any specific god.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well put.
-->
@Fallaneze
Darwinists? Oh deary me!
ID is not a theory it is an unsupported claim.
-->
@secularmerlin
Eternally regenerative black holes may contain the RNA-DNA coding in Space-Time patterns that emitted outward as black holes evaporate.The only discussion I think is how the abiogenesis occurred.
Ive pointed at least one experiement in lab where lady scientist got more complex molecules from less complex molecules via high pressures she was trying to associated with high pressures of metorite impacts on Earth.
She was surprised at finding more complex molecules were create i.e. not all what she expected.
Again if take this scenario out to extremes of high pressures associated black holes, we may have most complex molecules of RNA-DNA of humans existent in and on the event horizon surface.
See URL to better grasp what is possible on the event horizon if not also inside a black hole. Tho Jacob Bekenstein and S Hawking have already made clear the two have same content.