ajb

Rather than answer a moderator note - which is generally not advised - just get on and make your case.

Can you tell me if I have misunderstood you so far? In particular, you are suggesting that the origin of life is not natural?

The emergence of life?

Well, that is not what you started with, but okay. But I get the impression - and please correctly me if I am wrong - that you are suggesting that the emergence of life was not natural?

I don't believe in creationism?

Great - so what has this thread been about?

What to you mean by baseless?

There is no evidence for creationism. There are no claims that can be scientifically tested. To beleive in creationism is baseless.

I don't think we are in Kansas any more.

Indeed...

Simon, can you please get back to the subject at hand? You seen to just be linking to random symbols - if you want to discuss symbology then please start a new thread.

Because this is the logo for Jesus' secret society.

Please make it clear what this has to do with the topic at hand?

I thought he might be interested in why I choose to believe.

Then make your case as to why you support the idea of creationism - we are not generally interested in very personal views of religion.

Is this not in religion now?

Still you have decided to dive the discussion off topic - I am not sure why.

So back to evolution and abiogenesis please.

I am not a creationist ...

Are you sure? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that the formation of life, and the evolution thereof is not natural. Or are we mistaken?

So are you saying there is no evidence for Jesus being God?

Off topic!

Ok, lets start at the beginning, first, what is the evidence to support the emergence of life?

The fact that the Earth is covered with life

Why is life not emerging all the time?

Maybe it is in some extreme environments - anyway the standard thinking is that the conditions of the early Earth were suited to the emergence of life. The conditions today are very different.

All the evidence suggests that each new generation came from the one before it, rather than from nothing.

Which supports evolution.

That it is not possible, that life didn't 'emerge' from some primordial soup because there is no evidence to suggest that and all the evidence suggests otherwise.

What evidence tells us that this is impossible? I mean, can you give mainstream references to works that state this? Or can you give some better argument than 'because we don't know' as to why it is impossible?

Firstly, I must let you know that I am Taoist, not a Christian, however I do believe in the second coming of Christ and I do believe he is God, the creator of the universe.

That sounds like you are hedging here with Christianity - to offset the loses just incase Taoism is not the 'correct' philosophy.

Anyway... what is it you want to say about abiogenesis?

Lemaître

That's the guy...

Also in the direction we should meantion Friedmann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann

How exactly?

No body really knows.

I have been over this several times, it is the power, or the capability, to create, for example a cell.

This is not a useful attempt at a definition. For example, how much creative power do you have? Is it more than a rock? If, so how much more?

Can I talk about the evidence for God here?

If it is relevent to your opening post - which seems to have been about neo-Darwin evolution but now you have moved to abiogenesis.

the existence of ets is the most rational possibility

In this sense I agree - there has been no observational evidence for the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe.

This is the claim of physicist Fred Alan Wolf..ı could not decide if it is quantum quackery or not..

Generally, ideas that relate quantum mechanics to consciousness are considered pseudoscience. Wolf's work is considered no different and related to 'quantum New Age spirituality'.

I'm looking for empirical evidence

Right now there is no evidence.

We know that the building blocks of life are found throughout the galaxay and Universe. We have found planets that sit in the 'Goldilocks zone' of their respective systems. We know that there is lots of room in our galaxy for life - let alone the Unievrse. The best one can do right now is try to put some numbers to what we observe to get some estimates on various probabilities. The Drake equation is one way of trying to put some kind of numbers to the question of how many extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy that we maybe able to detect via their communications.

The bounds given by the Drake equation do not say anything about life that is not advanced.

You might be interested in the Drake equation - though we are not sure how useful it is as some of the parameters are pretty much just guessed.

In country with rather tough gun laws does this mean that ultimately crazies cannot be controlled by gun control?

Has anyone actually claimed this? Or have they said something like tighter gun control will reduce the accessibility of leathal weapons to people who have mental ills?

Also note that this is by far the worse crime of this kind in Japan for decades.

So, if you are asking if tighter gun laws will stop all mass killing, then the answer is no. People will find illegal guns or use other weapons. However, the rate of these crimes is lowered by tighter gun control in general.

Even the UK has some gun crimes and shootings - but the few we get make headlines.

Is there another property that is related to space in the same way? Momentum?

 

I'm just wondering if there is some sort of transformation between space-time coordinates and energy-something state space ...

People do deal with what we call extended phase spaces. As you know, space and momentum are canonical conjugates and you can also view time and energy in that way. So people develop a formalism where the phase space is (x,t, p E). This has a canonical symplectic structure and so I guess you can think about canonical transformations here. I have not looked at this properly for a while.

Did, or did not, the universe create the first cell?

The first cell was 'created' in the Universe by natural processes - better so say evolved. It is thought that the emerged something like 3.8 billion years ago. It was a big step in the evolution of life on Earth.

Well it kind of defines itself, it is the power (capability of doing or accomplishing something) to create.

I asked about this before... anyway you have not defined `creative power' at all. It is just a loose term. You need to show us an equation that we can apply to different things and say that X has more creative power then Y. Otherwise we cannot really make scientific sence of the word.

...but I like to know something about who I am speaking to.

There is an introduce yourself thread - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75313-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/

Otherwise, trying to bring your qualifications into the discussion is usually rather off topic and not helpful.

Space and energy are not directly related. Time and energy are. Basically, if the physics is time translationally invariant then energy is conserved.

Could gravity just be electromagnetic fields?

No...

Have a think about the weak equivalence principal and electric charge.