Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

[rjc34]

Absolutely groundbreaking discovery! NASA scientists have found frozen and fossilized life on some meteors! This could give a huge boost to the theory of Panspermia for explaining the origin of life on earth. Everyone should read this paper, or if not, at least the conclusions drawn.

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

6. CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous microfossils of cyanobacteria and other prokaryotes associated with modern and fossil prokaryotic mats. Many of the Ivuna and Orgueil filaments are isodiametric and others tapered, polarized and exhibit clearly differentiated apical and basal cells. These filaments were found in freshly fractured stones and are observed to be attached to the meteorite rock matrix in the manner of terrestrial assemblages of aquatic benthic, epipelic, and epilithic cyanobacterial communities comprised of species that grow on or in mud or clay sediments. Filamentous cyanobacteria similar in size and detailed morphology with basal heterocysts are well known in benthic cyanobacterial mats, where they attach the filament to the sediment at the interface between the liquid water and the substratum. The size, size range and complex morphological features and characteristics exhibited by these filaments render them recognizable as representatives of the filamentous Cyanobacteriaceae and associated trichomic prokaryotes commonly encountered in cyanobacterial mats. Therefore, the well-preserved mineralized trichomic filaments with carbonaceous sheaths found embedded in freshly fractured interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are interpreted as the fossilized remains of prokaryotic microorganisms that grew in liquid regimes on the parent body of the meteorites before they entered the Earth’s atmosphere.

The Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy data reveals that the filaments detected in the meteorites typically exhibit external sheaths enriched in carbon infilled with minerals enriched in magnesium and sulfur. These results are interpreted as indicating that the organisms died on the parent body while aqueous fluids were present and the internal cells were replaced by epsomite and other water soluble evaporite minerals dissolved in the liquids circulating through the parent body. The nitrogen level in the meteorite filaments was almost always below the detection limit of the EDS detector (0.5% atomic). However, nitrogen is essential for all amino acids, proteins, and purine and pyrimidine nitrogen bases of the nucleotides of all life on Earth.

Extensive EDS studies of living and dead cyanobacteria and other biological materials have shown that nitrogen is detectable at levels between 2% and 18% (atomic) in cyanobacterial filaments from Vostok Ice (82 Kya) and found in stomach milk the mammoth Lyuba (40 Kya); mammoth hair/ tissue (40-32 Kya); pre-dynastic Egyptian and Peruvian mummies (5-2 Kya) and herbarium filamentous diatom sheaths (1815). However, Nitrogen is not detected in ancient biological materials such as fossil insects in Miocene Amber (8 Mya); Cambrian Trilobites from the Wheeler Shale (505 Mya) or cyanobacterial filaments from Karelia (2.7 Gya). Consequently the absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites indicates that the filaments represent the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth’s atmosphere. This finding has direct implications to the distribution of life in the Cosmos and the possibility of microbial life in liquid water regimes of cometary nuclei as they travel within the orbit of Mars and in icy moons with liquid water oceans such as Europa and Enceladus.

The author has also submitted the paper to over 100 other leading researchers in the field to review the results and study the meteorites for them selves. We'll see in a couple of months whether the finding are accurate or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

May I ask what 'fossilized life' is -- other than a contradiction in terms?

 

[rjc34]

May I ask what 'fossilized life' is -- other than a contradiction in terms?

Well in your mind what else can ever be fossilized? Do you even know what a fossil is? What else would you call life that has been fossilized?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The Holy Bible was right once again.

"Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ...." -- Jesus Christ, John 10:16

"In my Father's house [heaven] are many mansions [planets]: if it were not so, I would have told you." -- Jesus Christ, John 14:2

 

[MoonLancer]

The Holy Bible was right once again.

"Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ...." -- Jesus Christ, John 10:16

"In my Father's house [heaven] are many mansions [planets]: if it were not so, I would have told you." -- Jesus Christ, John 14:2

Sorry, Jesus wasn't an alien.

 

[rjc34]

The Holy Bible was right once again.

"Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ...." -- Jesus Christ, John 10:16

"In my Father's house [heaven] are many mansions [planets]: if it were not so, I would have told you." -- Jesus Christ, John 14:2

Somehow I fail to see how any interpretation of these passages has anything to do with this paper...

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Sorry, Jesus wasn't an alien.

You don't believe Jesus existed so of course you don't believe he was of extraterrestrial origin.

My advice to you: read the Bible.

"... I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

Somehow I fail to see how any interpretation of these passages has anything to do with this paper...

Do you know what extraterrestrial life is?

 

[rjc34]

You don't believe Jesus existed so of course you don't believe he was of extraterrestrial origin.

My advice to you: read the Bible.

"... I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23


Do you know what extraterrestrial life is?

The church claims Jesus wasn't even of this natural world. An extraterrestrial life means life from somewhere else in this universe, not some vague 'supernatural' 'place' like heaven.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The church claims Jesus wasn't even of this natural world.

Absurd and absolutely ridiculous...

God is 100% natural.

An extraterrestrial life means life from somewhere else in this universe, not some vague 'supernatural' 'place' like heaven.

Do you still fail to see what extraterrestrial life has to do with extraterrestrial life?

 

[rjc34]

God is 100% natural.

Please define god then. Keep in mind the natural world is the realm of science. Don't go stepping where you can't hold your ground.

Do you still fail to see what extraterrestrial life has to do with extraterrestrial life?

Now you're just talking nonsense...

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Please define god then.

God is the First Cause of motion in the universe.

The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle

it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else.

Causality is a priori: since the universe is an effect, it must have a cause.

"... space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, Physics and Philosophy, 1958

The past cannot be infinite because then time would never arrive at the present (Zeno/Aristotle).

If you believe in the Catholic (Lemaitre) myth of the Big Bang then the Big Bang must have a cause.

And even if you don't believe in the Big Bang myth, there must be some cause for the universe and a cause of plasma, the chemical elements, atoms, and all that we observe in the material universe.

Keep in mind the natural world is the realm of science. Don't go stepping where you can't hold your ground.

Physics is a Greek word meaning nature. See Aristotle's Physics Book VIII.

The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle

it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else.

 

[Golden Yak]

When people think of heaven, they generally think of otherworldly realms, higher planes not normally accessible from the material world, etc. But I guess there's really no reason it couldn't be some other physical location in the universe.

 

[rjc34]

God is the First Cause of motion in the universe.

The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle
Causality is a priori: since the universe is an effect, it must have a cause.

"... space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, Physics and Philosophy, 1958

The past cannot be infinite because then time would never arrive at the present (Zeno/Aristotle).

If you believe in the Catholic (Lemaitre) myth of the Big Bang then the Big Bang must have a cause.

And even if you don't believe in the Big Bang myth, there must be some cause for the universe and a cause of plasma, the chemical elements, atoms, and all that we observe in the material universe.

Physics is a Greek word meaning nature. See Aristotle's Physics Book VIII.

The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle

Aristotle was a very bright and insightful man, but he didn't have anything close to the knowledge we have today. You're simply using the old God of the Gaps argument from ignorance. Yes, it all started in a big bang, but no, that doesn't prove a god exists. Even if it did, the farthest it could go is stating a deistic god exists, which is not what you're arguing for.

Please stop quoting ancient philosophers as the current understanding of the universe. Even men from 1958 had not a fraction of the knowledge we have today.

A Universe From Nothing - Lawrence M. Krauss, AAI 2009

That video pretty much sums up the current understanding of the universe. And it's very different from anything you claim. I urge you to watch the entire thing. Yes it's time investment, and I don't have any inclination to shake your faith. I just know that if you're going to be arguing physics, you should at least have a decent grounding on what the current state of science's opinion on the matter is.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

When people think of heaven, they generally think of otherworldly realms, higher planes not normally accessible from the material world, etc.

I think you are confusing atheists with people in general. Some people are not all people. In fact, literate people who know the English language usually read books called dictionaries. In America, the most popular dictionary is Webster's named after lexicographer Noah Webster.

If you consult the ultimate authority (Webster's dictionary "Heaven" definition number one), then you can learn what heaven actually means: Heaven - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of HEAVEN
1: the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome

However, one can also learn the meaning of heaven by simply reading the Holy Bible.

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." -- Deuteronomy 4:19

"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth." -- Jeremiah 8:2

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

But I guess there's really no reason it couldn't be some other physical location in the universe.

See above.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Aristotle was a very bright and insightful man, but he didn't have anything close to the knowledge we have today.

Considering Aristotle popularized formalized logic as a liberal art, I'd have to say that is absolutely absurd.

You're simply using the old God of the Gaps argument from ignorance. Yes, it all started in a big bang, but no, that doesn't prove a god exists.

What caused the Big Bang? The word that physicists use to describe the cause of the Big Bang is God. See Georges Lemaitre.

Even if it did, the farthest it could go is stating a deistic god exists, which is not what you're arguing for.

This statement contradicts itself.

Please stop quoting ancient philosophers as the current understanding of the universe.

No.

Even men from 1958 had not a fraction of the knowledge we have today.

"These ideas are part of a mistaken view of history best described as temporocentrism -- the belief that our own time is the most important and represents a 'pinnacle' of achievement. The temporocentric view is a hangover from nineteenth century ideas of progress. This crude version of Darwinian evolution has led to many misinterpretations of the archaeological evidence for ancient technological and cultural achievement." -- Peter James, historian, and Nick Thorpe, archaeologist, July 1994

A Universe From Nothing

Nothing does not exist.

That video pretty much sums up the current understanding of the universe.

No it doesn't. It sums up one man's erroneous lack of understanding of our universe.

 

[rjc34]

I think you are confusing atheists with people in general. Some people are not all people. In fact, literate people who know the English language usually read books called dictionaries. In America, the most popular dictionary is Webster's named after lexicographer Noah Webster.

If you consult the ultimate authority (Webster's dictionary "Heaven" definition number one), then you can learn what heaven actually means: Heaven - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

However, one can also learn the meaning of heaven by simply reading the Holy Bible.

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." -- Deuteronomy 4:19

"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth." -- Jeremiah 8:2

See above.

I think you're confusing 'americans' with 'creationists'. While yeah, there are a fair amount of bible thumping creationists in the US, that doesn't make the biblical definition which is, as in the dictionary definition, the 'firmament', which can be proven to not exist simply by looking at, say, the Voyager spacecraft, which has gone much beyond this supposed 'firmament'. Or it should be in heaven by now.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I think you're confusing 'americans' with 'creationists'.

I think you're wrong. Only 80% of Americans identify themselves as creationists.

While yeah, there are a fair amount of bible thumping creationists in the US, that doesn't make the biblical definition which is, as in the dictionary definition, the 'firmament', which can be proven to not exist simply by looking at, say, the Voyager spacecraft, which has gone much beyond this supposed 'firmament'. Or it should be in heaven by now.

Please read the relevant Bible quotes posted above so you can know what we are talking about when we say heaven. Heaven includes all the stars. As everyone knows, the stars of heaven are located beyond the heliosheath of the sun. Voyager hasn't even left the heliosheath, though it most certainly is in heaven.

 

[rjc34]

Considering Aristotle popularized formalized logic as a liberal art, I'd have to say that is absolutely absurd.

I'm not trying to diminish his achievements on that front. I'm just telling you that it is absurd to quote a figure from ancient greece when discussing modern physics.

What caused the Big Bang? The word that physicists use to describe the cause of the Big Bang is God. See Georges Lemaitre.

Maybe you should watch that video and understand why this is no longer true. He was a catholic priest, and therefore had to, in line with his beliefs, insert God somewhere into his thesis. Otherwise he couldn't be a catholic. Again, an old reference.

This statement contradicts itself.

Not in the slightest. Maybe you just didn't understand it. The farthest your 'unmoved mover' argument goes is to say that a deistic god might exist. It says nothing of the nature or identity of said deity.

No.

Well I guess for a man who bases his life around a 2000 year old book it's only fitting to quote philosophers who only knew of the same science as existed when that book was written. Seriously man, get with the program. Aristotle was no physicist, and to quote him as such is to belittle science and Aristotle himself.

"These ideas are part of a mistaken view of history best described as temporocentrism -- the belief that our own time is the most important and represents a 'pinnacle' of achievement. The temporocentric view is a hangover from nineteenth century ideas of progress. This crude version of Darwinian evolution has led to many misinterpretations of the archaeological evidence for ancient technological and cultural achievement." -- Peter James, historian, and Nick Thorpe, archaeologist, July 1994

Nice Non Sequitur. Sorry, but your quote literally has not even the slightest application to my response. It's common knowledge that science advances upward, therefore not temporocentric to know that we know more now than we did 50 years ago. Your logic is absurd. (Thanks for getting me into that word again btw)

Nothing does not exist.

Which is why you little mind needs to go and watch that presentation before you come back again. I'm going to stop responding if you don't knock off your ignorance.

No it doesn't. It sums up one man's erroneous lack of understanding of our universe.

Sir I don't get outraged easily but this statement here pretty much tells me you're sitting at your computer with your fingers in your ears going 'LALALALALALALALALA'. Take them out for a change. Maybe you should listen to an opposing view so you can actually carry out a legitimate debate, rather than just 'you're wrong i'm right, nananananana'. Dressing it in proper language makes no difference to the ignorance of the statement.


Now, make like good boy and watch that video before posting here again. And to prove you have, give me a quick couple sentence summary at the beginning of your next reply, so I can tell you've watched it.

 

[rjc34]

I think you're wrong. Only 80% of Americans identify themselves as creationists.

Cite your source. Exaggerating data is only for those who are trying to legitimize a losing position... oh wait.

"When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM). But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development."

Source.

As we can see by that quote, most reasonable adults understand and believe evolution, but have been indoctrinated into simple closing their ears whenever someone actually mentions the term. Sad really, the lies and misinformation perpetuated by churches and some evangelical christians.

Please read the relevant Bible quotes posted above so you can know what we are talking about when we say heaven. Heaven includes all the stars. As everyone knows, the stars of heaven are located beyond the heliosheath of the sun. Voyager hasn't even left the heliosheath, though it most certainly is in heaven.

It's in heaven... but it still looks like space to me! Where's this paradise we're supposed to be seeing? Or are you admitting that it doesn't actually exist in the natural world. Everything you just spouted is absolutely absurd. Well, except for the accurate portion as to the whereabouts of the Voyager craft.

 

[Golden Yak]

Some people are not all people.

You'll notice I used the word 'generally'. I'm aware of the different definitions of heaven, and I think you'll find that people generally do make a distinction between heaven, referring to stars and outer space (the heavens), and heaven as an afterlife realm of clouds and angels and God etc.

And I've heard of dictionaries, thanks for being monumentally condescending about it.