Panspermia
 

I'm not trying to start a new thread here - this is just for general reference on what I've called HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory). It's much older than I thought, like evolution it goes back to the ancient Greeks. It's called

panspermia

and I don't really want to continue the debate on it. I first came across it when researching the application of probability to evolution, and especially abiogenesis. The book by Coppedge was my starting point, but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible. So I quit pursuing the probability question.

Again, this is just for information since in came up in another thread - this article is a good summary for anyone interested.

Re: Panspermia
 

We're all human, dude. If we have an emotional need to justify our beliefs to ourselves, we'll do it. This is not a valid argument against evolution.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is not a valid argument against evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't offer it that way. I just came across it and thought it was interesting. Maybe sometime I'll give it more attention, just wanted to post it for those interested.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]
The book by Coppedge was my starting point, but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible. So I quit pursuing the probability question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the entire reason you studied this was to argue for God's existence? Do you see why this is futile? You should study these things so that you can understand what other smart people have learned about our universe. Not to prove that you aren't insane for believing in God. Or, to prove others are insane for not believing in God. Your agenda clouds your rationality.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book by Coppedge was my starting point, but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible. So I quit pursuing the probability question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the entire reason you studied this was to argue for God's existence? Do you see why this is futile? You should study these things so that you can understand what other smart people have learned about our universe. Not to prove that you aren't insane for believing in God. Or, to prove others are insane for not believing in God. Your agenda clouds your rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that or he wants to spread his beliefs, and honestly, I don't see any problem with that. I mean, I study Christianity with the intent of debunking it, and I doubt I'm the only one.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]
but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not realy. That life has been shaped by evolution for the last billion years or so is beyond dispute. How life began, or how heredity/replication began to be a stickler, is the question that panspermia seeks to answer. Even if life was planted on earth from somewhere else it still would have have evolved Darwinian style somewhere along the line.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to start a new thread here - this is just for general reference on what I've called HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory). It's much older than I thought, like evolution it goes back to the ancient Greeks. It's called

panspermia

and I don't really want to continue the debate on it. I first came across it when researching the application of probability to evolution, and especially abiogenesis. The book by Coppedge was my starting point, but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible. So I quit pursuing the probability question.

Again, this is just for information since in came up in another thread - this article is a good summary for anyone interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good example of a scientific theory that is open to investigation and validation. In contrast to God made us a we are 5000 years ago rot.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book by Coppedge was my starting point, but after pursing the idea for awhile I came across panspermia and realized atheists have an out even if evolution on earth were shown to be statistically impossible. So I quit pursuing the probability question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the entire reason you studied this was to argue for God's existence? Do you see why this is futile? You should study these things so that you can understand what other smart people have learned about our universe. Not to prove that you aren't insane for believing in God. Or, to prove others are insane for not believing in God. Your agenda clouds your rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that or he wants to spread his beliefs, and honestly, I don't see any problem with that. I mean, I study Christianity with the intent of debunking it, and I doubt I'm the only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your agenda clouds your rationality. That was the point. He was studying probability of abiogensis to somehow show that it's too improbable for God not to exist. That's just a bit different that studying Christianity to see if IT is credible.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your agenda clouds your rationality.


[/ QUOTE ]

We all have an agenda. I try to make the case regardless and judge the opposite the same way.

Re: Panspermia
 

[ QUOTE ]

A good example of a scientific theory that is open to investigation and validation. In contrast to God made us a we are 5000 years ago rot


[/ QUOTE ]

Panspermia is science and ID isn't. Um, ok.