Is panspermia a scienctific theory?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But yet, isn't it absolutely fabulous that no scientist has ever been able to force the evolution of even single-celled organisms?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess they do a pretty good job on dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc., etc., etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

So are you comparing the selective breeding of animals guided by a knowledgable and INTENTIONAL individual with Evolution?

Let me be more clear: Has any scientist ever succeeded in taking a population of single-celled organisms, exposing them to some agent which causes mutations and created a population of something different than what they started with which retained these differences over at least two generations?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and there is absolutely no non-circumstantial evidence that any evolution has ever occured? Sure there are "this set of bones" and "that set of bones" that "look alot alike" so one must have evolved from the other or they must have evolved from a common ancestor

[/ QUOTE ]

What about all the gene stuff?


[/ QUOTE ]

What about it? This stuff looks alot like that stuff but is different in certain ways; So this stuff must have come from that stuff -- still not proof, conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote in a post before, why does ET get a free-ride on that fact that it has proven untestable and is unverifiable? but ID is rightly ridiculed for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, as said before, because it's falsifiable and actually has data supporting it, as opposed to just cute thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please describe how ET would be falsified? How could one prove evolution doesn't or hasn't happened? I never stated that there is no data supporting ET; I asked where the verification is. A scientific theory needs to allow verification by providing predictive capability, and thus allows itself to be tested. How does ET do this?