Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American".

To quote: "As we have show, panspermia is plausible theoretically. But, in addition, important aspects of the hypothesishave made the transition from plausibility to quantitative science".

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

I always thought it was a Pantera video-ic theory.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

Heh, heh. You said "sperm."

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

still only a hypothesis at this point, and a tricky one to prove anyway. pretty good wikipedia article on it

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American".


[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, knew it. I've come to the conclusion that any explanation for anything, so long as God isn't involved, can be made scientific, even FSM.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American".


[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, knew it. I've come to the conclusion that any explanation for anything, so long as God isn't involved, can be made scientific, even FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explanations for God can be considered scientific; Christian Science, ID, etc. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

[ QUOTE ]
still only a hypothesis at this point, and a tricky one to prove anyway. pretty good wikipedia article on it

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I was only saying it is a scientific hypothesis as opposed to a non-scientific hypothesis.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American".


[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, knew it. I've come to the conclusion that any explanation for anything, so long as God isn't involved, can be made scientific, even FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. But some God based hypotheses are testable as scientific theories. And what is FSM?..that one is lost on me.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

[ QUOTE ]

And what is FSM?..that one is lost on me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Flying Spaghetti Monster. As in SETI, if you haven't found him yet, keep looking - the fact he hasn't shown up doesn't mean he isn't there. Now that's real science.

Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
 

Who's calling FSM real science?