If you believe you are a psychic, let me assure you, you are not a good one. Biology is not the answer to what is life in science, neither is physics.
Clairvoyance, nay; chronology, yay!
If I remember correctly I believe it was paleontology who coined the modern definition of life, albeit many fields have one.
When I say science I mean every field in science.
Ain't science thread, is evolution thread.
That is a theory, a probability which could lead to fact, it isn't a fact. And it is me who doesn't understand science, the whole process is still under investigation and being debated. We now have Black Stars being thrown into the equation.
Black stars, quark stars, dark matter galaxies... next up, supersymmetry. But it ain't about fact, it's about postulate verifiable by observation and capable of making predictions. From what I understand about time travel
D), it will never be likely to be verifiable "where it all came from." On a personal level, it is not even entirely verifiable that I am a nut from the family pecan tree. I don't "remember" being born, those people ain't got nothing to do with me. It's all hypothesis and conjecture, but I'm pecking away at these plastic keys anyway... maybe.
Atoms, photons et al is a cliche' which suggests anything which you or anybody else cares to throw up, where did it come from. It is an imposibility by todays standards to have an effect without a cause, yet this is what most modern theories I have ever read or heard is asking me to believe, either that or something was created from nothing, another impossibility. Credibile scientist in this field will acknowledge that they build their premise on a power of suggestion for nobody not even you has this answer.
Causality is a nest of snakes. It has been argued elsewhere that "cause and effect" are just arbitrary labels for occurrence. It has been shown in experimentation that response to stimuli can "respond before stimuli" - nest of snakes, I say - but it is true that the cosmological models arising from causality trace entropy "back to the beginning" as it were. But I don't agree with your conclusions, that they are asking you to believe in nonsense. What the models do trace back to is perhaps a period in time where the "heat of creation" as it were was so - well, hot - that a veil was formed. The quark-plasma soup was opaque to radiation, meaning anything happening "inside" was prevented from propagating outward. I've never seen "beginning from nothing" mentioned in the literature beyond the official RCC website. It's cosmic vibration, quantum fluctuation, or cyclic a la Hawking et al. Or, my old line - in the beginning, there was uncertainty; somethings never change.
I have already told you you are not a good psychic, give it up. And if that is what your mind is telling you, don't trust anything your mind tells you, your belief patterns and emotions are impairing your judgement.
But interesting to see, is this how you usually try to dig yourself out of a hole you have dug for yourself?
About the only thing it does suggest as it pertains to science and religious beliefs, is at the beginning of each premise they are each asking you to believe in a miracle. The definition of Miracle as used in the previous context shall mean, something which is outside of our current knowledge base at this point in time.
Of course, I am psychically projecting incompetence - and you are falling into my web of delusion! Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha... :devil:
Nah, don't do clairvoyance. I am my own hypothesis. By running my neck, considering thought inward and forming conception outward; in this manner I pave the road of subjective reality forward. If it does veer off into the wilderness, by speaking of it thusly I get an idea where not to go in the future.
And every day is a miracle. I rise from the death of sleep to be the fool again!
