posted
Just wondering what posters here think about death. Do you believe in an afterlife?
Posts: 7 | From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a deduction based on several different lines of evidence, that causes me to suspect this. For one, abiogenesis (the theory that life can auto-generate) has been proven inherently problematic on surprisingly many fundamental levels, and blatantly unscientific. And no, I don't mean problematic in the sense that the problems can be resolved, if scientists just work at it long enough; the problems are insurmountable, and this can actually be gleaned from the use of their terms. For example, they speak of ''evolving molecules'', and long winded chemical reactions that supposedly would have occurred in the 'primordial soup', when all scientists in their right minds already know that molecules cannot evolve, and that chemical reactions react fast and then become useless components relative to each other, causing revolutions, not evolutions.
Interestingly, the window of time postulated for the required ''evolutions'' to occur, from a simple molecule, to a one celled organism, has been cut down to increasingly short time spans. Instead of the billions of years that key 'scientists' felt were needed for the impossible to occur (they believe that if you wait long enough, things will happen and life will auto-generate), they have to deal with what the new finds indicate; research has shown that conditions on early earth would have been detrimental to any auto-generating incipient life forms. Conditions would have only been favorable at a late point, causing several 'experts' to entertain such radical and ridiculous notions as early one-celled organisms originating in outer space, and arriving here on a rock.
This doesn't in and of itself prove that afterlife exists, but all of the evidence, when put together, does indicate that biogenesis (life originated out of some other life form) is the most likely scenario.
Discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics also have many implications about the metaphysical realm, the existence of more than matter, and all humans being connected with each other, but also with some other, yet to be defined, meta life form.
As can be predicted with those quacks who call themselves scientists, they've been trying to suppress the inevitable for the longest, and those who know about the history of institutionalized ridicule and defamation in science, know what I'm talking about.
Abiogenesis and materialism (the idea that everything exists out of matter) are fundamentally unsustainable, and research documenting this has been coming out relentlessly, in the past few decades.
So, to answer your question, I believe that, there is more than matter, and that all humans are connected via this meta physical stuff. I also believe that death can be defined as 'a state wherein bodily signals are no longer causing proteins to fold'. Since proteins and bodily signals are made up of matter, this would leave the aforementioned non-matter, metaphysical stuff unaltered. Following this reasoning, the said metaphysical stuff would then continue to exist in some way shape or form.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thermal Dynamics, you understand that and you understand what will happen (to some degree) when you leave this place.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9: ^ Why does pansmeria seem like a "ridiculous notion" to you?
Because we've all seen what has happens when shooting stars occur; most extra terrestrial objects evaporate before even reaching the earth crust. We've also seen what happens with extra terrestrial bodies that do make it past the atmosphere. It's definitely not what one would describe as a soothing experience for a few vulnerable organisms.
They're opening up a cosmic can of worms (literally), without having solved the inherent problems, and unstated assumptions first. If you ask me, it's just a ploy to get peoples minds off the insurmountable problems faced with abiogenesis on earth, because when you're already entertaining the idea of life coming to earth on some rock, you're already at a stage where you won't have to answer to how those life forms came into being.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PaulMorphy: I always had a feeling that reincarnation is possible. Energy does just transform after all. Wo knows, maybe I'll come back as a rock lol.
One more thing, do you think a soul would be apart of that 'metaphysical stuff' you brought up earlier, or that it's just a product of our mind?
Asante, I always had a belief that when we die we return to the state we were in before birth, so could we be born again? Maybe just wishful on my part.
BTW, I gotta love Neal Degrasse tyson. Thanks for posting that vid.
Posts: 7 | From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely believe that what has been called our 'souls' throughout the ages, is society's equivalent to the meta-physical stuff I had mentioned earloer.
Here is one of the many sources I used at the early stages of my research. Please not that, often, he doesn't state what exactly he is basing his claims on, so you'll have to track most of it down, and see whether you find it credible. Most of what you'll end up with is supported by research, but will sound immensely odd. Just know that our definition of what seems credible or surreal about reality is based on what we (think we) already know, not because of familiarity reality itself. He's a solid guy, and well respected by the establishment, though few of his fellow quantum physicists dare to speak up in this manner, about the implications of Quantum Mechanics.
quote: Q. Some people have difficulty accepting that something can be real but not physical. Is there anything in science that is real but not physical?
A. The answer is yes. Magnetism is a well- researched area of study where we have demonstrated the existence of something that is real, and yet not solid or tangible. In science class as children, you might have seen how the horseshoe-shaped, bar magnet moved the iron fillings into magnetic field patterns without the magnet having to physically touch the iron fillings to move them around. So the effects of magnetism clearly demonstrates that something may exist, is real, is not physical and solid, yet it can fill space and move in time--as we know magnetic fields do. If a common phenomenon like a magnetic field acting on iron filings can do this, could not the soul be an invisible, nonmaterial, super-intelligent, animating force that similarly acts on and through the human body and the universe?
To further explore the possible nature of the soul in scientific terms, we can look into the heart of quantum physics. It has to be said at the outset that the study of quantum physics is a very difficult realm to investigate because the objects and forces that are studied by quantum physics are usually infinitesimally small. As we go down to the level of sub-atomic particles, scientists find that these particles are moving so rapidly that we can’t follow them as we would follow an ordinary larger object moving in ordinary space. The movements and properties of these very small objects do not follow the old ways of thinking found in classical physics that were developed by Sir Issac Newton and others. On this sub-atomic level of existence, Newtonian physics simply doesn’t work. So a new form of physics had to be created to adequately account for the phenomena we observed. On the sub-atomic level, particles don’t simply move from point A to point B in a continuous fashion. Instead, these particles move in “quantum jumps.” Particles virtually leap from one place to another. These atomic jumping processes create all visible light. In order to understand how this works, we first have to understand how light behaves in atoms.
We have found that light-emitting electrons inside atoms are actually quantum leaping from one place to another, instantaneously. Though this is sometimes hard for the mind to conceive, we know this is a fact because we have tested and verified mathematical equations with actual experiments in the field. The phenomena observed in these experiments match the theoretical equations very well. Quantum physicists have also demonstrated in experiments with sub-atomic particles that certain fields have a kind of intelligence and seem to be able to do things that ordinary fields can’t do. One very strange process that physicists observe is that electrons simply vanish, in a puff of light, when they interact with certain other particles. In the beginning, we didn’t know why this happened. Then we realized that these vanishing electrons were interacting with anti-matter. Because anti-matter electrons moved oppositely to electrons, when the opposing particles met, they annihilated each other. When we studied anti-matter more closely, we began to speak about anti-matter as being “bubbles in the absolute vacuum of empty space.”
Q. What is this “absolute vacuum of empty space?”
A. Well, how many of you have ever fallen asleep watching television late at night and when you awoke, you heard the static hushing noise ” from your television screen? That noise, produced by the electronics inside the television receiver, is the amplified sound of this “vacuum of space.” Many quantum physicists, including myself, believe that the entire universe, the entire creation, was created out of the “absolute nothingness of the vacuum of space.” It appears this “vacuum of nothingness” is intelligent, active, and has a consciousness. The source of the soul proceeds from, and is present in, this vacuum. Admittedly, the very notion that “some thing” can be created from “no thing” is a very difficult concept for the mind to grasp. I theorize that the soul emerged at the same time that all the matter in the universe emerged--at the time of the “Big Bang” 15 billion years ago. According to our present scientific model, the universe and the soul will continue to exist for another 20 billion, billion years until a time that is referred by scientists as the “Big Crunch.” Between those two points, from the Big Bang, at the beginning of time--to the Big Crunch, at the end of time--all the matter in the universe appears, expands to a maximum point, and then contracts again into nothing. And through it all, an ultimate intelligence, call it what you will, guides and directs the various activities of everything in the universe-- including all living life forms, in an unfathomable, unseen way.
Q. Some people talk about the Light that is seen at the moment of death and in near-death experiences. What is this?
A. From a scientific standpoint, it is difficult to say exactly what is going on. And the reason why we don’t know is because we have no idea where the viewer is that sees this Light. As an example, right now, you have some sense of being present in your body looking out at the world. But according to what we know from physics, this is an illusion of perception: There is no place inside your body where “you” actually exist. You don’t have a particular volume of space or spot that is “you.” It is an illusion to think that everything outside that volume of space is “not you”--what you commonly say is “outside of you.” The best description we can give for this sense of presence is that you “are everywhere.” The main reason that you have more awareness of being in a body is simply because the sensory apparatus of the body commands a great deal of your attention and that much of your attention is linked to your physical senses. We have the illusion that our human bodies are solid, but they are over 99.99% empty space. If an atom is blown up to the size of an entire football stadium, the dense part of the atom would be comparable to the size of a single grain of rice placed on the 50 yard line. Now why is that important? Because in an atom, the nucleus accounts for 99.99% of all of the matter or mass. Atoms are mostly made of space. So although we experience ourselves as being these solid human bodies, it’s more like “who we are” is an awareness or consciousness that lives in space.
posted
Interesting stuff to look into. So are you afraid of the possibility that once you're dead it's just lights out (non-existence)?
Posts: 7 | From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Life is a Cycle, like everything else in Nature/the Natural: Birth, Death, then Re-Birth...
Are not dead bodies referred to often as "remains" hmmmmmmmmm.....it makes sense when one thinks about it (depending on one's beliefs and/or knowledge), as that is what we leave behind, or what 'remains' when we transition to Death....
-------------------- "TRUTH IS LIKE LIGHTNING WITH ITS ERRAND DONE BEFORE YOU HEAR THE THUNDER" - Gerald Massey "TRUTH IS FINAL" -Mumia Abu-Jamal Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I've seen some documentaries, and read some books, on Edgar Cayce....I don't too dismiss him eno...
quote: Edgar Cayce (pronounced Casey) was born on a farm near Hopkinsville, Kentucky, USA on March 18, 1877.
Dubbed "America's Most Mysterious Man" and "The Sleeping Prophet", Cayce gave over 14,000 readings during his lifetime. These readings include numerous cures and tips for staying healthy, which is one of the reasons why Cayce is known as the "father of holistic medicine." But aside from health readings lies a wealth of information on reincarnation, Atlantis, prophecies, dreams, and countless other topics.
The belief that the soul incarnates many times has long been a belief held by many religions and different civilizations.
The readings given by Edgar Cayce, however, have helped the concept gain ground in the Western world as well.
Over 2,500 of the Cayce readings deal with this topic. Through the study of the concepts raised in the readings, we can gain valuable insights into ourselves and begin to realize our connection with one another and know we are indeed all ONE..
Why do we reincarnate?
This is probably one of the first questions a person considers on this subject. Interesting answers lie within the Cayce readings. We were created in undeveloped form, to allow us room to learn and grow and develop our individualities. We were/are not mirror-images of the Creator which enables us to partake in the wonders of being and development.
We were created in undeveloped form, so as to allow us room to learn and develop our individualities.
This is the reason souls' incarnate. To grow and develop, so that each may eventually earn his place beside the Creator. Reincarnation offers us the chance to learn from our mistakes and to develop our talents. And all of this learning cannot be done in the span of one lifetime! It is a gradual process. The readings state that often it takes more than thirty incarnations on the earth plane for a soul to finish its development! We cannot discuss reincarnation sensibly without talking about the Laws of Karma. (see `What about Karma` below)
How often does a soul incarnate on the earth plane?
There is no set interval between lives. Sometimes a soul may choose to come back within weeks of its last death, other times it may be centuries before it returns. In one reading, Cayce told a man that he had not been incarnate on the earth plane since the times of Atlantis. This does not seem to be a common occurrence in the readings, however, so one may safely assume that most souls reincarnate with greater frequency. It all depends on the lessons to be learned. However, it's very important to define what we call a life, and how we determine an entity??
Is it possible for a soul to reincarnate as male or female?
The soul itself is androgynous, meaning that it maintains both male and female qualities. Yet, when incarnating on the earth plane, a soul must choose to be one or the other, and to take on some of the polarities of that sex. When a soul enters a female body, for example, the male qualities of that soul are often de-emphasized whilst the feminine qualities are accentuated. In one incarnation, it may be better suited for a soul to choose to be male, while in another the soul will gain more through a female experience. This "switching off" helps the soul gain the most of both polarities.
As spiritual beings, we wish to learn and grow. Therefore we have all chosen lifetimes whether as male or female and indeed heterosexual, homosexual or transsexual to learn specific lessons and to continue certain growth factors. At a higher level of consciousness - before we enter a lifetime - we choose to work on certain themes, to overcome given blockages and limitations, to develop certain personal qualities at a soul level and to make our unique contribution to the universe. We carefully select our culture, background, race, sex, parents, childhood experiences and sexual orientation to work on our intended life-themes.
What about Heaven and Hell?
An individual may stop and ask himself where the popular concepts of Heaven and Hell fit in with the scheme of reincarnation. The Cayce readings do address this subject. They tell us that Heaven is when one is in the presence of God, while Hell is that state of separation from God.
Cayce stated several times that mind is the builder. Our own negative thoughts and actions create hell, whether it be one we experience here in the physical body or in another plane. Our own free will gives us the power to banish ourselves from the presence of God/Spirit.
Since hell is a self-created state, it is possible to leave this state. The soul may gradually awaken from this self-created darkness and continue on with its development. Cayce suggested that we pray for those who have passed on to help them through their difficulties.
How does the concept of reincarnation explain population growth?
If one thinks of reincarnation only in terms of the physical plane, then this question may confound you. However, we must keep in mind that the readings state that souls also exist in other planes. The earth plane is only a small part of the whole. More souls are incarnating on the earth plane now than before because the need is greater, and there are more lessons to be learned. Growth, expansion and new ways of learning are continuously evolving on all levels and planes of existence.
Other planes offer lessons for the soul, although not in material form.
What about Karma?
Karma plays an important part in reincarnation. It is the law that tells us that we must sow what we reap; that all of our actions have consequences, whether they are good or bad. It helps explain why some are born with physical ailments and others aren't; why for some life is a smooth road and for others it is rocky. However, do not assume that just because a person has a physical handicap that he is facing up to karmic consequences. Sometimes the soul may choose a difficult life to help it learn its lessons more quickly. There is much misconception about karma and exactly how it operates.
Understanding the law of karma can give us confidence that we are in control of our own lives. When we realize that all of our experiences are the result of our own conscious and unconscious choices, we also see that we ourselves are in control of our own fate. Nothing is beyond our control. Cayce explained that the purpose of karma is to help us live in harmony with the laws of the universe, not to punish us. In fact what creates the karma is not the deed, but the belief that led to the deed itself. It is thought and feeling that drives the Universe, not deeds.
In other words, Karma is the Universal law of cause and effect. It is a law that is embedded in this Universe.
We all have free will, freedom to choose how to grow. You may choose to grow with joy, or alternatively, through pain, anguish and fear. The law of karma is not a justice and retribution system, so anyone who has had much suffering in this life is not a victim of 'bad karma', but simply finds themselves in predicaments that are simply the result of their own beliefs about themselves. It is not only humans that feel guilt, but souls can feel it, experience and carry it round with them for many lifetimes. "The law of karma is not a justice and retribution system, so anyone who has had much suffering in this life is not a victim of 'bad karma',..." For example, if a person should hurt another human being, it is not the deed in itself that attracts the karma, it is the emotional state and the beliefs about Self that led to the act of `hurt` that will create the karma, or result, at a future date.
Be that date in the current or a future life. "Every event in your life, whether or not you choose to view it as being either good or bad, is Divine Grace in action....." .
Law of Grace
The law of grace supersedes the law of karma. If at one point we realize that we have done wrong and have truly learned our lesson, we may find ourselves dealing with the intervention of grace. This is when we can "dodge" the corrective action of karma because we have come to realize that what we have done is wrong, and we go to work fixing this. However, grace is not an excuse to avoid our responsibilities and make up for them later. It only comes to us when we have truly gained understanding, and we move to use that understanding in our lives.
Awareness of grace can come to us when we are facing a difficult situation and we call out for help. At that moment, it may feel as if someone has lifted an enormous weight off our shoulders, or we feel as if everything is going to be all right. It can come to us at a time when we feel down and suddenly we find the strength to continue, or in a moment of inspiration. Opening ourselves to grace can make our paths easier to travel.
Quotes From the Readings
"What is life? It is a manifestation of a soul. Remember that the self is made up of body, mind, and soul. And the soul would know, does know these are all the gift of the Creator and the Maker. The purpose in life, then, is not the gratifying of the appetite nor of any selfish desire, but it is that the entity, the soul, may make the earth, where the entity finds its consciousness, a better place in which to live." (4047-2)
"In the beginning all souls were as a unity to the God-Force. As self added or subtracted that which was in keeping with God's purpose, ye added or subtracted from the blessings ye might be conscious of in materiality. Thus karma is builded. And the law is perfect - what ye sow ye reap. There is no law causing man to separate himself from his Maker. There is no cause except man's own indulgence or neglect." (3660-1)
"Truth is growth! For what is truth today may be tomorrow only partially so, to a developing soul." (1297-1)
"For each entity in the earth is what is it because of what is has been! And each moment is dependent upon another moment. So a sojourn in the earth, as indicated, is a lesson in the school of life and experience. Just as it may be illustrated in that each entity, each soul-entity, is as a corpuscle in the body of God - if such an entity has applied itself in such a manner as to be a helpful force and not a rebellious force." (2823-3)
"For one enters a material sojourn not by chance, but there is brought into being the continuity of pattern or purpose, and each soul is attracted to the influences which may be visions from above. Thus there the turns in the river of life may be viewed. To be sure, there are floods in the life; there are dark days and there are days of sunshine. But the soul-entity stayed in a purpose that is creative, even as this entity may find the haven of peace which is declared in Him." (3128-1)
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PaulMorphy: Interesting stuff to look into. So are you afraid of the possibility that once you're dead it's just lights out (non-existence)?
I mean, yeah, but, what is that based on? Those fears are meant to keep us alive, evolutionarily speaking, so just like all mental scenario's that imply impending doom, they're triggered when we think about not being here. Outside of those feelings, death (in the atheistic sense) would be 'what it is', neither bad nor good.
How would you, for example, conceptualize that form of death you just described, if you were wired to think positively about loosing your life?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's true. I guess its just what I've imagined death to be like since I always assumed conscience relied on the mind and died with it. But as you've made clear, there are other viewpoints out there. Maybe one day we'll finally understand what conscience is and may be able to say for sure.
Well I guess if that were the case, I wold want death and wouldn't really care what came after.
Posts: 7 | From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
''Why does pansmeria seem like a "ridiculous notion" to you?''
Lengthy but interesting article questioning panspermia.
Homochirality: The Truth Is Out Where?
Evolution News & Views January 31, 2011 7:00 AM Permalink [Intelligent Design site]
When it comes to origin of life scenarios, the only way to explain the emergence of life from purely naturalistic premises is that life, and all of its necessary components, arose by chance, or by natural laws or by some combination of both.
Whether life arose in a "warm little pond" or in heat vents or in ice crystals, origin of life scenarios must rely only on chance and natural laws (chemical and physical properties) to explain seemingly impossible phenomenon, such as how DNA first arose.
Right-handed amino acids are found in nature, but for whatever reason proteins only employ left-handed amino acids. Laboratory synthesis of amino acids produces a 50/50 mixture, as is expected with chiral molecules, and both are chemically equivalent. Obviously this cannot be attributed to chance any more so than someone flipping a coin 100 times and getting all heads can. So from naturalistic premises, the only way to solve this is to find some reason why the chemistry favored a particular orientation of biomolecules.
One piece of the origin of life puzzle is that biological molecules have a particular chemical orientation. Biological molecules are composed of carbon, and carbon can form four bonds. When there are different things coming off of those four bonds, it makes a difference where those bonds are with respect to each other. For example, when you look at your hands, your thumb could come off of the right side of the hand or the left side of the hand. The orientation of your thumb and fingers relative to each other makes a difference. Your hands are not superimposable (the same); they are mirror images. Carbon bonds have a similar characteristic. When a carbon-containing molecule has a bond structure around a carbon such that if the bonds were arranged differently the molecules would not be superimposible, it is said to be a chiral carbon or a chiral molecule (from the Greek for "hand"). An interesting thing about chirality is that it does not change the chemical nature of the carbon bonds. So if you have a reaction that ends up making a chiral carbon, you will probably get a 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed molecules. All of the amino acids, except glycine, have a chiral carbon.
Here is the rub: Amino acids that are from naturally occurring proteins are all left-handed.
The two pervading naturalistic theories on this are: 1) Evolution selected left-handed biomolecules or 2) they were formed in outer space. The exact mechanism for these two theories is the fuel for research and publications. Recently, the Astrophysical Journal published a paper that studies ultra-violet circularly polarized light because this is one of the few ways that can produce a particular handedness (e.g. more right-handed molecules than left-handed molecules) in organic molecules (The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 727:L27, February 2011). Since the mirror images of chiral molecules are called enantiomers, a mixture that has more than 50% of one enantiomer over is another is said to have an enantiomeric excess (e.e.).
Some primitive meteorites contain a small enantiomeric excess of certain chiral amino acids, leading many people to believe that perhaps the origin of homochirality is found in outer space. The authors of the Astrophysical Journal paper sought to investigate what kind of cosmic phenomenon would cause this. One possibility is UV-circularly polarized light (UV-CPL) acting on cosmic "ices" or chunks of cold rock that eventually become meteors. "...we tested such a scenario in a laboratory simulation using UV-CPL to drive the photochemistry of cosmic ice analogs under plausible astrophysical conditions and search for the generation of chiral species with significant e.e.'s..."
They decided to compare their experiments to the Murchison Meteorite, which landed in Australia on September 28, 1969 (Garrett & Grisham Biochemistry 2nd Ed, Harcourt, Inc, 1999). This meteorite showed an enantiomeric excess of several amino acids of 2-9%. The authors looked at alanine, which had an enantiomeric excess of 1.2% on the Murchison Meteorite.
For the experiment, the authors selected a particular photon energy that they knew was close to the maximum needed for alpha hydrogenated amino acids, and directed those photons to a synthesized ice mixture that is theoretically similar to cosmic ice mixtures. To simulate interstellar conditions, they used ice mixtures of the composition H2O:CH3OH:NH3 (2:1:1).
This experiment resulted in a 1.34% e.e. of left-handed alanine, close to the 1.2% reported for the Murchison Meteorite. Other amino acids of interest were too dilute to take meaningful measurements. Usually with these syntheses the smallest amino acids are formed in greater amounts. Alanine is the smallest chiral amino acid. The authors' assumptions are first, amino acids formed in outer space under similar conditions to what they have reconstructed in the lab, and secondly, that these molecules were exposed to UV-CPL under the appropriate conditions to cause an enantiomeric excess of left-handed amino acids.
A couple of experimental procedural notes: First, to get the laboratory experiment to work, the UV-CPL radiation temperature was increased to higher levels than what is thought to be in outer space, but the authors explain that this is still reasonable since the meteor will likely go through various temperatures: "The use of a higher temperature (80 K), rather than observed temperatures for interstellar ices (10-20 K), was decided to enhance diffusivity and recombination of photoproducts within the ices...However, since the complete cycle of inter and circumstellar grain evolution comprises cycles through warmer regions (hot cores) in which grain temperatures rise significantly (200 K), astronomical organic residues should be produced via pathways similar to those in our laboratory simulations." The authors justify this by referencing experimental studies that showed irradiation temperature (10 or 80 K) does not greatly influence product composition.
Second, they chose to irradiate for 10 hrs with the molecules at room temperature (this would be about 20 C or 293 K) "to potentially favor enantioselective photoreactions based on a photon-molecule asymmetry transfer..." In other words, they shot photons at the compounds for a particular amount of time at a particular temperature that they knew would favor the reactions they were pursuing. The authors still contend that this remains astrophysically relevant particularly in "hot molecular core environments, where grains are heated and complex gas-phase molecules, thermally desorbed from the ices, are observed..."
While the authors may have a point that there are hot cores in outer space, they are adding an additional factor by assuming that the meteor must apparently pass through a hot core for a period of time and under certain conditions. At this point, there has been quite a bit of experimenter intervention for what they consider a "natural" process.
A 1.34% enantiomeric excess is significant enough to measure, but does this experiment solve the mystery behind homochirality? Let's consider what is most reasonable and probable. Obviously scientists are looking for an explanation for homochirality because the chances of nature accidentally selecting left-handed amino acids in a pool of a 50/50 mix are impossible. So, instead, the possibility presented here supposes that a meteor somehow went through a heat core and was exposed, apparently within the heat core, to UV-CPL with particular helical properties ended up with some amino acids with a slight e.e. on it. It hit the earth, and happened to hit in such a way that the amino acids were not destroyed upon entry, which is possible given the Murchison Meteorite, but then landed in a place conducive for reactions to take place. Furthermore, the authors mention that other amino acids on the Murchison Meteorite show a greater e.e for molecules such as isovalene "that cannot be explained solely by the asymmetric effect of UV-CPL," meaning that the meteor had to have gone through yet another process to produce the enantiomeric excess of other amino acids. Then those reactions apparently beginning with anywhere from 1.2 to 9% e.e. of left-handed amino acids ended up producing 100% e.e. of the chiral amino acids, which is still inexplicable. How is this any more probable than nature just happening to find the one place where a 50/50 racemic mixture was not made and chemistry did not behave as it normally would?
This paper is interesting because it may account for the 1.2% e.e. of L-alanine in the Murchison Meteorite, although even this is questionable since their procedure does not account for the other amino acids on the meteorite. However, it does not offer much by way of explaining this very difficult origin of life puzzle. The final section of the paper speculates on where UV-CPL sources of the particular helical value necessary for hydrolyzed amino acids might be found. They suggest this type of UV-CPL was "most probably produced by dichroic scattering [ref removed] on aligned grains by a magnetic field in reflection nebulae close to regions containing massive stars." They speculate that this might be similar to where the Sun was formed. By continuing to add specific conditions upon specific conditions, the likelihood that a meteor brought left-handed amino acids to earth which lead to the subsequent beginning of life is quickly diminishing.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''As can be predicted with those quacks who call themselves scientists, they've been trying to suppress the inevitable for the longest, and those who know about the history of institutionalized ridicule and defamation in science, know what I'm talking about.
Yes, from what I've been reading many scientists will agree with you on this.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by PaulMorphy:
Just wondering what posters here think about death. Do you believe in an afterlife?
OK
Well death is, death, when our bodies quit all functions and begin to rot. I guess, if conscious of approaching death by gradual cause instead of murder or fatal accident, it's not to face it with fear or over concern with ritual interment of body or proper cremation or ingestion.
Yes there's afterlife. Whatever it is, after life is over either sentience is from then until forever non-existant or continues on in another plane that may or may not interplay with this one.
Continuing sentience could be subtly influencing our physical world from a spiritual world. This could be one path of afterlife.
Continuing sentiece could be uninvolved with our former physical world and relationships and take on growth and learning on whatever plane it exists.
Physical rebirth or re-incarnation is nearly a universal belief, a part of nearly every religion or spirituality of nearly all humanity. A small portion of individuals and peoples believe that this current life is all there is and are totally unconcerned about a Spirit in the Sky or a spirit world after life is through.
I guess those of us who experience incidents of recognition of or communication from transitioned family or friends are assured there's a sentient afterlife firmly interconnected to this plane.
Others, who've not had the waking happenstance of interaction with the spiritual or physical reincarnated departed may be agnostic, skeptical, or even against concepts of spirits and spiritual worlds.
Who's right and which one is missing what the other one knows to be the real true case of the matter?
Is there a reason we're here beyond the science of biology or did it all just purely randomly happen?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
''Yes there's afterlife. Whatever it is, after life is over either sentience is from then until forever non-existant or continues on in another plane that may or may not interplay with this one.''
Afterlife should be recognized as a belief not a facts based commitment. Facts in this case are forever going to be elusive in my opinion because with or without scientists input there is no way to render an unknowable into something that satisfies all areas of belief.
If there is an afterlife, from my nonspiritual look at it, it involves a genetic component. This certainly makes it scientific and more of a reasonable view in my opinion.
When the spiritual aspect has such a belief in their position and knowing science can't relieve them of an afterlife belief because science is impotent in the face of such a belief system, this then gives ammunition for the belief in an afterlife. However, recognition isn't factual in a belief sytem. And surely science is just as guilty because their position tells them they have the answer from a scientific standpoint. Yet when pressed for answers on their so-called fact-based belief system they hurriedly adopt a consensus-type mentality in the hopes enough ''yes, we all agree it's this way'' will automatically give credence to their position--a position that assuredly in some cases won't hold up under observation therefore making a shambles of their consensus mentality.
But the issue still remains and can't be resolved. It only means science has a belief in place to satisfy their position--which means nothing for their dearly beloved empiricism trumps all. So what follows is this: science is trapped, probably forever, within the extremely limiting confines of their 21st century physics.
''I guess those of us who experience incidents of recognition of or communication from transitioned family or friends are assured there's a sentient afterlife firmly interconnected to this plane.''
And this is where science and religion butts heads.
To the individual like me who's never known a ''transition'' from departed family members therefore making my belief in an afterlife unsustainable from a spiritual viewpoint, then what does it say for those ''have'' understood this transition of sorts... who, from within their existence, have known the interconnectedness of departed family members?
Again, science can't answer it and therefore this necessarily means those who have experienced something ''unscientific' automatically come under suspicion and scrutiny from academia. Yet because of the scientific community's inability to actually have an answer for the unknowable, this then places them in a position of pleading to the masses that since it can't be demonstrated then what other answer can there be, except to marginalize those who claim to have an understanding (which eludes science).
And this is where I can agree to Swenet's quack scientists retort.
Science has no business telling others what they've experienced simply because they and others haven't been privy to those experiences that 'don't fit' the prevailing paradigm. So in this sense science needs to butt out and stay away from areas where they have no control. This can be translated to mean there is no controversy in science on what makes a car perform the way it does; there is no controversy in the technology behind manufacturing rockets that can overcome earth's gravitational hindrance. The list is endless here. Science knows this. So science should stick to what they do know and accept and leave their disbelief in other experiences at the door because the unknown hasn't manifested itself to them such that they can say ''I told you so.''
[]b''Is there a reason we're here beyond the science of biology or did it all just purely randomly happen?''[/b]
In my opinion the biology stands on its own; we are biology. *This* we can see. There is no dispute on this. The problem obviously is we don't understand how biology and conscience interface with each other. Aren't they both the same? If they aren't, can it be proven they aren't. And also in my opinion there is no randomness anywhere to be found here. The genetic component as it regards the afterlife (mentioned above) simply means, to me, we have been tampered with from outside sources. Sources of which we have no clue as to what any of this means except to say we may be someone else's property, or worse yet, a galactic outhouse--and zoo.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic