But I'm not baffled. The chemical processes leading to cell death are very well understood. Furthermore, the smoothness of temporal processes is an experience we all have abundant access to. Temporal discuntinuities in biological processes such as you theorize about are quite contrary to an abundance of evidence.
Hoping for the answers to life and death and existence from science alone is like hoping for a typewriter to sing an aria.
Maybe, but this is no reason to promote factual falsehoods.
Science, my friend, has a long and ignominious history of promoting factual falsehoods.
Your objection to the idea of human life beginning and ending appears to be a simple semantic jump to the definition of the word "life" referring to the cellular level biological processes at work in human tissue. Frankly, that ain't what this thread is about and you know it.
To ignore the plain fact that a living human being did not exist nine months ago, but there is now a living, squirming, adorable newborn baby, and to torture the definition of the word "beginning" to exclude this process is the very definition of disingenuousness. To blithely pass by the event of a human's ceasing to breathe, his heartbeat stopped, his brain activity nonexistent and the flesh of his body quickly and entirely beginning to decay while declaring that a true "ending" has not occurred is equally silly.