faith based science?

No, Inadequate. Not anything will have happened in trillions or quadrillions of years. If that was the way you make it out to be, then you would see anything happening now which is not the case. What will have happened in trillions or quadrillions of years is only everything that is possible to have occurred at that length. And none of what is impossible.Some possible things may be taking longer than quadrillions of years, like the life cycle of a galaxy cluster, decay of some elements and so on. No galaxy clusters turning into leprechauns might though be possible ever.
One more thing. You need to learn basic rigour in English and math. Infinitely many is an oxymoron. Sloppy language. Strictly speaking infinitely many is zero.
If non-life turning into life is possible, such occurrences may have indefinite number of instances. If though that kind of process is not in the stars it may not happen even once. Ever.Then life is as intrinsic to matter as matter is to life. Like Feynman said all that is not prohibited in nature is obligatory. That means that possible and impossible are just good guesses about what is necessarily so and what is necessarily not.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

No, don't be fooled by these dogmatists. The question whether abiogenesis had indeed occurred or not and if so then where exactly had it happened, - on earth or elsewhere is central to the ensuing evolution itself. It's one mechanism of change over time for something starting from scratch or mud as this case may be and it's entirely different kettle of fish if life had been at it an indefinite number of times beforehand.
An old hand who remembers many tricks of the trade behaves not in the same way a novice whose memory is a clean slate does.
Panspermia theorists postulate a strikingly different mechanics of change from species to species, etc, if you don't know that.

What was it exactly in my message, Inadequate, that prompted you to hurry to dismiss it as insane?
Was it the suggestion infinity is not a quantity? You may disagree together with Cantor and Hilbert but that's just a difference in opinion. I can back up mine. Can you do the same?
Or was it my suggestion that galaxy clusters are quadrillions of years old? Well, you may be of opinion that the whole of existence is only 13.7 billions years old. That's an opinion currently voted to be correct. I don't share that opinion so don't vote it up. I reckon that the Universe has no possible age but the local structures in it take longer to form than the duration ascribed by the current dogma to the whole of existence.
Or was it Feynman quoted to depart from the usual quantum probability tripe and suggest that necessity rules throughout? Applied to abiogenesis that makes the process either necessary or impossible. Which is the case is not clear so is a matter of faith and not probability.That's all more than misguided on your part. That is an attempt to present opinions you don't like as madness. Which is a totalitarian trick.

Sorry, Larn, but your dismissal is a bare assertion. No backing. Unless the Universe is a relative, finite object surrounded with an environment greater than itself, it may have no age. Duration is a comparative assessment: greater than that but lesser than something else. The Universe lacks any standard to assess its duration by so has no age by definition. It's your reasoning and debating skills that are poor.Who are we? Relying on authority? You yourself know nothing. Buy a telescope, watch the sky, learn to calculate the peculiar galaxy velocities going towards the formation of such clusters as the Sloan Great Wall and others and then talk about how long the process may have taken.

Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possesses the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.
My job is to analyse such absurd claims, to defend the nonsense is up to those who parrot it.
Just consider the enormity of your chutzpah. The bigbangist cosmogony's proposals imply that all the atoms in existence could be compressed to take up the volume orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. And you suggest I provide evidence that this is not possible?I suggest you get yourself a lab, take a few protons and try to squeeze them into the volume of one. Keep the cat posted about your successes in such an endeavour. And remember we are talking not a bunch of protons but all the protons in existence concentrated into less than one. Think about that.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

That is correct. It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once. Waves require medium necessarily. Wave is a moving shape of that medium. Therefore, the description is a metaphor and could be well replaced with other more concrete description better reflecting the physical attributes and architecture of the phenomenon of radiation. No progress of understanding would be hurt and if such an alternative description were used right from the start no development of technology would have been impeded by that.

No arguments forthcoming apart from cussing and impotent rage as per usual, Larn?Now for the sake of overkill and to finish off any feeble stirrings of the absence of reason on your part if such are present:Not only no two protons are known to let themselves occupy the volume a single one needs to take up and no two protons are known to stay on this way other than on a fancy mathemagical paper describing imaginary exotic conditions quadrillions miles away from any laboratory. Those dudes are well known to have room around them where they move unimpeded relative to each other. Moreover in the case they are all condensed into much less than a single one as the bigbangist fable implies and loves the gullible idiots to believe, the room previously occupied must be vacated necessarily while the room not occupied any way must disappear altogether.So, what do we do with this vastness of empty room that must be made totally absent itself for the hypothesis to hold?Remember, it postulates no space at all in the alleged beginning as the putative initial condition of it all 13.7 billion years away from here. How and where to do you remove all the room that is vacant? Vacuum the vacuum? Where do you dump all the emptiness? Hide it up your arse?Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Problem is yours, Doc. Your peddle pseudo-science as a fact of nature. When caught red-handed in the act you loudly protest the whistle-blowers are mad. Deal with the problem, Inadequate.

Wickedpeddlia is not a good source to learn about Panspermia from. The site is by now totally overrun by dogmatists so is any use as the source of information only on anything not contested in any way, shape or form. It's good for links and no more than that.
Try Brig Klyce and his site Panspermia.org or the Journal of Cosmology to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

It's better than learning astrobiology from Panda's Thumby The Dogmatist. He is an amateur and that means he spent twenty years studying it for love. You may have a paid position and a diploma so are doing it for the belly and out of peer pressure. Vast difference.

Now, Doc, please stop muddying the water and pulling wool over everybody's eyes. Do I profess that my belief all Rastafarians are after me or anything of the sort is a fact of nature? Not at all. You and your buddies, on the other hand, do profess that your faith that all the atoms currently in existence were once concentrated in the volume of a pea is an undeniable fact of nature confirmed by science. When confronted with scepticism towards the preposterous belief you and your mates shout that the doubters must provide evidence you lot are not deluded. Who is unreasonable, Doc?

Well, yes, infinitely many means nothing much, zilch. It is an oxymoron. Any number is finite. Many implies a number. A number is given only after one has counted and has finished counting. Infinite does not mean that, it does not qualify as a number so the combination of words is sloppy language. If that is currently considered the height of mathematical wisdom is irrelevant. Cantor and Hilbert made this kind of abuse of language accepted and as a result a lot of nonsense based on multiplying and dividing by zero is accepted too. Such as big bunks, black holes and the rest of singularities, dark matters, energies, etc. The whole lot of ghosts populating the multiverse of popphyz.

Your insinuations miss the point. You imagine I must have friends and relatives who think like yourself so upon reading what I write here are bound to decide that my mocking your dogma and second-hand opinions on physics is a sign of madness and will let me know that in no uncertain terms. Your assumptions are unwarranted. Why would I need boring friends like that? No reason.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Well, yes. Many implies a great quantity. Quantity implies a finite number. Infinite contradicts that. Do you have a problem with that?

You have a problem being obstinately boring. Otherwise, madness is other people's problem, not any problem of the mad. It inconveniences other people first of all like any bad or criminal behaviour. The mad and bad are likely to be happy to be just like they are. So you should have written - show what your write to your relatives and friends as I hope they may have problems with it.
Actually that goes for the boring too. Only the bored have problems with boredom, the boring are happy to bore.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.