Hi CrazyDiamond7,...
Good to remember the great Pink Floyd
You have good insights, I think, like " life's energy" , light as life, etc. , so, I would appreciate getting more information.
You said:
quote:
‘Life energy and existence never had a beginning. Because no beginning of life is found outside of what is already living.’
That's a good point. No man have saw any living system that was not produced by an existent living system. So, does not matter how many " theoretical" evidences the abiogenesis theory got, it is not rational, because in the human rational world, life comes from life.
But... there is no proof either that the state of the world at the time that a living biological system emerges somewhere is not " alive".
And since that the world seems to be a natural phenomenon, then, there is no certainty that the origins of biological systems is not natural.
Humans are in trouble due our symbols sometimes does not translate the real world. One sample is the word " life". Other big trouble are our theoretical models about the macro and micro dimensions.
We can get a model of the state of the world where "life" emerges that has all life's properties, but does not express these properties in a biological fashion. It can be electromagnetic or mechanical fashion. If so, how could one saying that such world is not life and the cat is life?
The very problem is that there is no proved fact demonstrating that this model of an astronomical system is wrong. So, life could be under evolution not only as biological system, but it could coming trans passing through atoms and galaxies following cosmological evolution.
Other problem is that humans always trying to compare a natural system with parts of other systems. Then, abiogenesis is the temptation to compare the first living being - a complete and working cell system - with a part of other system: Earth as part of a galactic system. It makes no sense.
Then, any part of system seems to be non animated, but always the system to which it belongs is animated. And what is the demarcation between two working and animated natural systems for saying that one is alive and the other is not? Again, abiogenesis theorists does not ask this question because they are comparing systems with a part of other system.
So, we can think that the suspect that "life" could be a natural production is rational, because the astronomical system where biological life emerged is natural. What is non rational is the belief that biological life emerged from " non-life", since that no man has seeing a unique biological life emerging outside life. But this could be fixed if their astronomical theoretical model is wrong.
Then we go to the second good insight from you:
quote:
'We have come from the Light".
The trouble that I have for to replicate in lab a living system is that there is no known kind of energy that works like the energy of living things. When drawing a living system as a machine, the machine does not works plugin into the wall device. As you said, must have a specific life's energy, or an unknown state of normal energy. It is not about building a hydroelectric source in shape of mitochondria, because the mitochondria does not work without this life's energy.
A good solution could be " light", as you are suggesting. Because any wave of light carries on a small amount of electric energy and the light could modelling this energy in the way that it mimics the configuration of light. And any wave of light could be the "vital principle" if it propagates like any living systems propagates itself under the rules of a force called " vital cycle". It is that force that if you apply it on to a stone, the stone would grow, changing shapes, dying, etc. So, since that the electric energy carried by light mimics the dynamics of that light, and that dynamics is the vital cycle, we have found the life's energy.
I am calling " light" here the general emanation of all electromagnetic radiation, from gamma-ray to radio. In fact, the sequence of vibrations of this light wave is equal the sequence of vibrations of a human body in a lifetime. That's why I am suspecting that light could be the big answer.
A big problem that I have with yours theory is that you have not going down to real facts here and now for to explaining yours insights. Like I do: I am showing a theoretical astronomical model working by life's properties, an electromagnetic spectrum suggesting how it is under the life's cycle force, etc. As you said:
quote:
'We have come from the Light, from the place where the light emanates of itself, arises and appears in our image.'
You need elaborate this affirmation, like describing this place and at least showing as evidence real known facts that such place really exists. If you don't do that, you have no reason saying that materialists are using transcendental metaphysics when suggesting that life came from non-life, because you are making same mistake.
When you says:
quote:
In the living word ( glittering with lightning through the density of the clouds ) was the life...
You are saying almost the same that MatrixDNA Theory, which suggests that the first waves of this living light emanated at the Big Bang and propagated through the dark matter, the substance of space. The living energy produced by these waves of light modelled the inertial substance and imprinted the dynamics of vital cycles in this substance, generating the first functional natural systems, like hydrogen atoms, etc.
For yours information, materialists like the evolutionary biologist PZ Myers ( Pharyngula blog) is suggesting that life was produced by electrons. I agree because the photons of light penetrates electrons and drives them to make atomic connections mimicking the connections of frequencies of light waves which are the code for life. What do you think?
There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory
™ Version 4.2
