#1
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
I always thought it was a Pantera video-ic theory.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
Heh, heh. You said "sperm."
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
Who's calling FSM real science?
|
|
|