Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in no case did any student have colonies grow in the control plate? But colonies always grew on the mutagen plate? What was the mutagen? In what way did you confirm there were no resistant bacteria in either group prior to the introduction of/to the mutagen? Any chance you can provide a citation to any published article describing such an experiment?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think he's going to go through all that trouble just to help reinforce his point to someone who's just going to disagree with it anyway? This is a 2+2 forum, not a serious academic exegesis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually the only hard part would be an honest attempt at a citation. The mutagen, the answer could well be, "I don't remember" and I would believe him just fine.
Let me state a couple of items clearly so we can continue:
1) I don't hold to ID, I don't believe it, it isn't science.
2) I believe that a good scientific theory has to allow itself to be tested and predict. ( lookup Karl Popper, if you are interested in some philosophy ( if you aren't already familiar ) ).
3) I have always wondered why scientists have not provided stronger proofs and experiements to support ET. Or if they have, why I have never heard of them. This is my complete and honest question.
|