smallest genome of any lifeform has 160,000 lines of code!

Its not "my philosophy of science", that's how it is. Science is very open to anything that can show evidence of its existence. We can rewrite your sentence by:
I think your philosophy of science must encompass the possible existence of...
...unicorns
...fairies
...magic gnomes
...goblins
...ghosts
...gnurgle-burgles

Scientific community will be very happy to investigate any of those, after evidence of their existence is presented and verified.

And your mom landed on the moon.
In 1969!

Describe this “scientific community “ for me ?
Do you have a physical address for them?

Last I checked every scientific community on the planet has been bought or sold to a corporation.

Building shit for the MIC. Or Coca-Cola or blackrock.

I see you left Santa off that list…
I get it. Holidays…

Proof the AI bots trolling GLP are dumb as they come.

Observation of events which depart from any conceivable laws of physics could be taken as evidence of "god" or some other intelligent agent

Such may be the case with primordial origins of life

Sure keep looking for abiogenesis but I think those who make statistical arguments have a valid point

But there the anthropic principle allows exotic but "natural" explanations as well such as via the multiverse

Last I checked a specific group of folks created all of this too.
Very “specific” group of folks……

Christianity
Islam
The Media
Hollywierd
Epstein Island
C0mmun!$m
The term “Racism”
Usury
Capitalism
Porn0graphy
Multicultur@lism
Z!0n!$m
COVID
BLM
ANTIFA
NAACP
ADL
Federal Reserve

Their name rhymes with Chew…

They can try to duplicate this a billion times and still achieve the same outcome. The theory does not seem to uphold the rigors of scientific discipline.

The question of whether god exists is similar to the question of do we live in a simulation

Very similar

Maybe a simulation is a particular type of god theory

Or maybe it needs more investigation..

The notion of simulation is not so ideologically opposed among the science minded

Yet our notion of the scientific process, or our philosophy of science, should be general enough it would apply and be usable within a simulated reality

If we are in a simulation

Does the simulator dictate out notion of the good ie our moral order?

I don't think that logically follows

I have a strong science background and have no religious beliefs, but I must inform you that you are very, very wrong with you statements above. Biologists in general are very poor scientists and do not generally have a good working knowledge of chemistry, math, physics or probability. That makes it easy for them to put forward exactly the types of scenarios you describe above.

Reality is far different and life is not "easy to start" by any known method. Since I have no beliefs about how life got here I can acknowledge that it could have arisen through natural processes, but there isn't even a good theory at present that is consistent with what we actually know about physical reality.

What you listed above is a fairy tale idea, not a theory. The reality of why that is so is so complex and complicated that I can't possibly type it here with my thumbs but I will give you just one simple thing that no one has an answer for that makes simple explanations impossible from the start. If you don't understand this example and don't understand the implications it has, then you literally should have no opinion on this topic.

Amino acids can be formed through natural processes and that has been experimentally tested. There are serious problems with the experiments, but I'm satisfied that amino acids can form without life. The problem is that abiogenic processes for the formation of amino acids always produce equal amounts of left and right enantiomers of chiral amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. However, all life that we know of is formed solely with left handed amino acids and produces only left handed amino acids in all of its processes. Enantiomers of these acids will bond with each other with the same proclivity, and there is no known filters for selecting one over the other except for life itself. If a protein has even one right handed amino acid in it, it doesn't work and won't fold properly.

There are many more problems just here at the beginning with amino acids without even going forward to complex subjects and ideas. But that, one problem is enough because there are zero experimentally tested and verified solutions to it. Life may have self assembled, but if it did we havn't even the glimmering of a theory for how it did.

sunlight is INFORMATION

all first plant organisms were created by the INTELLIGENCE of the SUN

the 'left handed' helix of the sunlight waveform

Scientific community is not an entity. It is just a broad term to describe many different branches. When referred as I did, it usually means academic peers. You can get the address of any university or college near you that would deal with the proposed paper anyone wanna write. Then a review process will be made and if accepted, it goes to many different scientific libraries and be available to anyone to check or even based future works in. Yes, you, yourself can write your own scientific papers! About any subject you want! You can even research about the things I mentioned above and even god! As long as you can show evidence for it, it will be reviewed and if your evidence is good and sound, your very own research can become part of the whole scientific community! Heck, if you can prove god, you'll probably be nominated to a Nobel prize! Isn't it awesome?

But then again your checking process intrigues me. You said: "Last I checked, every scientific community on the planet has been bought or sold to a corporation". That would be a monumental amount of work! Every scientific community? Every single researcher, every single one? If you could provide your research method and your results that would be great!

Life itself was never created. It's infinite, just as the universe is, it was always there and always shall be. It was recreated as earth and billions of other life forms.

There is no beginning and no end. The issue is the minds of men have trouble comprehending infinity, because it's scary.

I told my father his punishment for being a pedo elite was for his conciseness to traverse the universe for billions of years, maybe forever, for what he had done. I don't think hell is anything more than an endless journey through the blackness always hungry always thirsty always in pain. People can more easily comprehend a Dantes hell than what is real.

Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that, through cellular respiration, can later be released to fuel the organism's activities. Some of this chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars and starches, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water – hence the name photosynthesis, from the Greek phōs (φῶς), "light", and synthesis (σύνθεσις), "putting together".[1][2][3] Most plants, algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis; such organisms are called photoautotrophs. Photosynthesis is largely responsible for producing and maintaining the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere, and supplies most of the energy necessary for life on Earth.[4]

Although photosynthesis is performed differently by different species, the process always begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called reaction centers that contain green chlorophyll

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, sugars are synthesized by a subsequent sequence of light-independent reactions called the Calvin cycle. In the Calvin cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide is incorporated into already existing organic carbon compounds, such as ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP).[5] Using the ATP and NADPH produced by the light-dependent reactions, the resulting compounds are then reduced and removed to form further carbohydrates, such as glucose. In other bacteria, different mechanisms such as the reverse Krebs cycle are used to achieve the same end.

The first photosynthetic organisms probably evolved early in the evolutionary history of life and most likely used reducing agents such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, rather than water, as sources of electrons.[6] Cyanobacteria appeared later; the excess oxygen they produced contributed directly to the oxygenation of the Earth,[7] which rendered the evolution of complex life possible. Today, the average rate of energy capture by photosynthesis globally is approximately 130 terawatts,[8][9][10] which is about eight times the current power consumption of human civilization.[11] Photosynthetic organisms also convert around 100–115 billion tons (91–104 Pg petagrams, or billion metric tons), of carbon into biomass per year.[12][13] That plants receive some energy from light – in addition to air, soil, and water – was first discovered in 1779 by Jan Ingenhousz.

what is the will of life forms? the billions and billions of trees, bushes, plants all put forth leaves, construct all these leaves to capture the sun. the life forms use the light energy create more complex molecules.

think about that, the action of light upon organisms creates your complex organic molecules.

light impregnates matter.

the sun is an orgasm.

the plants stick their roots into the ground (the matrix, the womb)

and use the impregnating energy of light to assemble inorganic compounds into organic compounds.

the seed is placed in the Earth, to 'fuck seed into the ground' used to mean you stick your finger in and put a seed in and cover,



but the question i always ask is, why aren't there immortal life forms? why wouldn't that be the primary goal of life?

why does every life form seek to procreate, rather than simply exist forever as self?

No one has ever been able to explain how DNA came about because it's incredibly complex but even the most basic life forms have it. Scientists have not ruled out aliens bringing it but they are desperate to avoid acknowledging the possibility of God existing. If anyone suggests it they're ridiculed, lose their funding and job, and basically lose their career. So why are the "scientists" of today and those who fund them so against the possibility of something they know they cannot disprove?

“could have formed”

I would hate to be RUDE or anything . . .

MY DNA code “could have formed” so that my

Buttt doesn’t STINK AS BAD AS an “opinion” . . .

but it didn’t .

agreed but even given 4 billion years i find it hard to believe we could have evolved all the capabilities we possess by accident

Gotta think about simpler things becoming more complex over oceans of time to see it.

That genome in the link is the simplest genome now, not the simplest genome ever.

Who says it was an accident?

Either/Or is a false dichotomy.