NASA Finds Sugar Molecules Essential to Life in Meteorites That Crashed to Earth

www.theepochtimes.com ^ | November 25, 2019 Updated: November 25, 2019 | By Katabella Roberts

[JusPasenThru]

I’m not talking about hate. No friends, I’m talking about eight. Dinner at eight! Let’s eat! (MORE SUGAR).

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks fieldmarshaldj.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·

• First Detection of Sugars in Meteorites Gives Clues to Origin of Life | 11/21/2019

[higgmeister]

“On Earth, life uses left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. Since it’s possible that the opposite would work fine–right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars. Scientists want to know where this preference came from,” the report explained.”

I’ve wondered that for years.

Like the difference between Levomethamphetamine and dextromethamphetamine. One is a vasoconstrictor in a nasal inhaler and the other gets you a prison sentence.

It's like Alice through the looking glass.

When I first read that on my Vicks nasal inhaler I was taken aback to say the least.

[unlearner]

“please define ‘serious’ truth seeking spectrum”

I put “serious” in quotes because I was quoting you. It’s a simple term. I think we both know what it means. You can define it if you want.

When discussing epistemology in relation to science, we must delineate between science and a philosophy of science. The scientific method was not derived from scientific inquiry directly. Sure, in a pragmatic sense, the method evolved by doing scientific experimentation. But it was philosophy that examined the process and refined it to what is used today.

Technological progress does not always rely on the scientific method. Technology exploits how things work. Science seeks to understand how things work. Technology advances due to science but also do to random discoveries, intuition, and happy accidents. It is more pragmatic than science as inventors often simply try something until it works.

An axiomatic assumption of naturalism ignores the importance of the philosophy of science and wrongly elevates scientific inquiry to the level of reality and truth itself. When we are able to distinguish the philosophy of naturalism from science we are then able to ask the question (scientifically) of whether or not space-time is a fundamental reality. It is looking more and more like this is not the case.

It is beginning to appear that space-time functions more like an interface between our minds and the fundamental reality behind it.

Returning to Einstein’s quote, Einstein recognized philosophy to be the foundation of science and what distinguished “a mere artisan or specialist [from] a real seeker after truth”.

I do not consider those who stubbornly refuse to question their own philosophic adherence to naturalism but, rather, treat it as an article of faith, to be “serious” truth seekers.