abiogenesis

What I find strange is that the whole thread is the opposition of two possibilities only. That is, it is dogmatically held that life must either have started on Earth through the natural process of abiogenesis or it otherwise had no choice but be created by God in one fell swoop or at least be intentionally designed by an incomprehensible supernatural intelligence.
Both views take for granted that life must have had a certain origin localised either in space or time. I find such an assumption to be highly dubious together with the whole nonsensical Big Bang paradigm it nicely fits into. Why should life have by all means started once rather than just be an intrinsic feature of existence is beyond me.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.There are other avenues to explore for f's sake! Lately I see some awakening of interest in the panspermia ideas exemplified by the Journal of Cosmology and so on yet that is not enough to which this thread is a good demonstration. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

Well, Larni, that quantum version of the linear progression of complexity has got serious troubles too. That assumes a physical possibility of the three scales of existence being perfectly separated at a certain point. That is, the micro scale of being once existing on its own in an absolute fashion and total absence of the other two levels. That is another highly dubious mathemagical proposition. It preposterously claims that the ordinary classic and cosmic scales of existence could have developed from the quantum, sub-atomic level like a mighty plant develops from a tiny seed.
Not anything possible to observe, confirm or falsify, thus depending on the blind faith and religious fervour of a typical big bangist for its acceptance.
What is observed is only that the three levels of existence are being present all at once, being mutually dependent and forming a dialectical unity. No planets teeming with life without the galaxy superclusters and their constituent quarks is the real deal at any observable instant, I am afraid.Also there is one more bit of trouble and blatant contradiction in the allegation contained in your signature. That sub-atomic quantum chaos is miraculously assumed to be the point of lowest universal entropy. Another bit of ludicrous absolutism I was talking about in my previous post. For that assumes that purported Planck unit allegedly well alone in existence at the mythical time zero to be a point of highest possible disorder and the state of highest possible order all in an absolute once.
In reality, of course, it represents only the point of highest quackademical absurdity inside of a typical theoretical mythematician's head.

Yes, but in dialectics any two opposites when united produce a third term. That was implied here as the conscious human observer is an emergent property of both cosmic and quantum scales impossible without either just as either is not possible without the other one.

Well, Mr. Inadequate, that game two can play, my friend. I get your hint but can easily dismiss everything you have ever said here as just a syllable stew. You may not like it much too if to add my insult to your injury, I'd rub your learned nose in the concoction of your learned mouth.

Well, you can say, of course, that depth is an emergent property of breadth and height. That is, if you start modelling from drawing two lines, the second perpendicular to the first. May it though mean that the depth can physically evolve from breadth and height in linear time, like a plant does from a shoot with the shoot itself developing from a seed of a dimensionless point?
I reckon not. That would be just mistaking one's own process of modelling for the real physical evolution. That's a laughable extrapolation of a mental process onto the whole of existence to which the quackademical BB hypothesis is a good example.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

Well, yes, you add sodium to chlorine to let deliciousness emerge and I have no trouble with that. All I have trouble with is your subsequent ludicrous pretence that in the process you have managed to trace the ultimate origin of deliciousness.
The idea you defend here pretends that this was the first instance of salt ever, that is sodium and chlorine had never met before and then it goes on to assume both sodium and chlorine are ultimately traceable to nothing at all.

That's lame, Inadequate. You are losing your plot here. In what way any one's ability to make allegedly false statements can be limited by their inability to make supposedly actual ones is beyond me. All that is extremely vague, dearest. That's inevitable though.
Those ideas that you are desperately backing are so vague and ill-defined, your defence of them can be nothing but vacuous allegations and name-calling undiluted by any argument.
Try to define what is false and what is actual first. Here's a good guide to teach you stop crapping at your mouth:
index

Yes, I got all his real points which was first that whatever he may say about them must be true while whatever they say about him must be false. And second was that his ability to make true statements is less limited than their ability to make false ones and that is why he is Dr. Adequate and they are something else.

That meaning as intended by him I get too. Though that is just a front and not his real point. Everybody here gets the gist of what I say well enough and he is no different. The point that I hold the consensus cosmological ideas he is in the habit to support to be nonsense is driven home on him loud and clear. He does not like my point at all but has not got anything much to say to defend what I call nonsense. So in his desperation he hints that my point is mere word salad. Word salad, I am sorry, literally, has no point at all. Simple.

Why must it move that locus anywhere? What you say depends on taking for granted that there must be a certain single point of ultimate origin. That is precisely the assumption that I put in doubt if you read carefully my original post in this thread.

Well, here you lump together my stance on abiogenesis and BBT while it is not the same at all. There is a crucial difference and that difference is that in the case of BBT the scenario boils down to either that there is relative something resulting from the alleged absolute nothing or there is no Big Bang possible to have happened at all. Gazillions of big bangs of M-theory is no big bang already but gazillions of small whimpers really.In the case of abiogenesis however unlikely it might be, there is just an organic something resulting from something that is not organic. Therefore in my book the BB is a sheer pseudo-scientific fancy while abiogenesis is quite plausible at least in theory and on paper but is just very hard to test and demonstrate practically. It's no hard fact of nature by any means.
Panspermia though also not easy to test and confirm is a clear possibility. I don't see on what grounds other than those of sheer dogma, abiogenesis is a preferable direction of research here. That is all I wanted to say and if I am overly abrasive, it's that I am giving back to some what I am getting from many. And when I give it back, I give it back with good interest and a good vengeance.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

Okay, Mr. Inadequate some of it could stand some editing to make a better and clearer read. Still, all your efforts at quote mining and picking and choosing me at my most fanciful moments notwithstanding, my point has always been clear enough for you, my friend.
Also your being always so dry and boring does not make the ideas you defend here any less absurd.
I can easily edit the stuff to make it plainer and more to the point. The question is can you as easily edit the universe into really expanding, if it has nowhere to expand into? Being already here, there and everywhere before and after your alleged expansion could have even started, let alone accelerated?

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. That implies some exploring and improvising so it may not come out the best possible way every time around. Also apart from the task of hooking you on anything I try not to bore myself stiff in the process of casting the net.
But..well, I might go through my posts and edit some of them. It's good this function exists in this forum and I should probably be taking advantage of it more often.

Well, Omnivorous, that was a fair summation of my position considering.
Otherwise, the question is how hardy life is? It is understood that the environment is extremely unwelcoming. Cosmos is a killer. While what I observe inside myself is that the basic vital impulse is just as persistent. It feels like an irresistible force too. So that's a struggle. Could there be a winner or is it that no matter how harsh and seemingly impossible the conditions are, it is equally impossible to destroy all of life completely so some life will always go on?
You ask for evidence but as I said there is no conclusive evidence so far to support either of the positions- that of abiogenesis and that of panspermia. In the meantime I am following with great interest the people who are centered around Dr. Hoover and Journal of Cosmology.
Check it out if you want to read the actual papers and stuff.
Home - Journalofcosmology.com

Well, the dialectical opposition here is between very great and very small. The average which is the result of the clash between great and small is the resulting third term. In this case this is the ordinary scale of existence. What is your objection to that? Great and small are implied in each other while the average is implied in both as the middle term. That's both dialectics and relativity for you and as I contend both dialectics and relativity are cavalierly disregarded in the consensus cosmology I am opposed to. Well, relativity is paid a lot of lip-service to in the process of being denied.
Simple.