ajb

I knew a girl call Marianne... just don't ask my wife about her (thats another story)

I am not sure what you mean by a black hole collapsing. A black hole solution in general relativity is a vacuum solution - there is nothing to actually collapse. The additional fields and particles are are uasually thought of as test particles, meaning that they don't contribute to the geometry/gravity. Test particles will hit the singularity - at least classically. Not for test particles - if you had enough mass inside the horizon then it may not be a black hole solution. For example, the Schwarzschild works fine for the external space-time of say the Sun. There is no horizon here as it would sit inside the Sun, but in that region we do not have a vacuum solution, thus we need some other solution to the field equations - so called interior solutions.. Usually we treat them as only being acted on by gravity and not creating any gravity. But this is an approximantion that is thought to be okay.

I don't know, or really I am not sure what one means by that.

For a physical black hole one would expect fields and particles to be inside the horizon.

Interesting, but the reason for 'create' in the context of nucleosynthesis is that creationists don't seem to hijack particle cosmology! There is less worry about misunderstandings here.

The RNA world is one possible route from chemistry -> biology, but other routes have been suggested (not that I know much about this) The point is it was not like one day there was mud and the next day advanced cellular life. Thanks for making this point.

This point is very important - cells evolved some time after the first very primative life emerged.

Emerge is the standard langauge here - in this context it means 'come into be'. The word 'create' suggests more, it suggests purpose and a creator.

Strange choices of words here... the Universe is everything and life can be found in the Universe. Life emerged maybe better - we want to avoid the suggestion of a creator.

In essence yes - life developed in the Universe and we think via natural and not supernatural processes. The word 'create' may not be the best choice.

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?

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?

Great - so what has this thread been about?

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

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.

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

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

Still you have decided to dive the discussion off topic - I am not sure why. So back to evolution and abiogenesis please.

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? Off topic!

The fact that the Earth is covered with life 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. Which supports evolution.

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?

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?

That's the guy... Also in the direction we should meantion Friedmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann

No body really knows. 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? If it is relevent to your opening post - which seems to have been about neo-Darwin evolution but now you have moved to abiogenesis.

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