Panspermia

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may steer this in a different direction, is ID falsifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Evolutionary Theory falsifiable? This is the main problem with these discussions. Vehement ET believers are quite often vehement christians-are-idiots believers as well; and the ET vs ID discussion becomes nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt for Atheists and Christians to attack each other's core beliefs.

Can one of the vehement ET people explain why ET gets lets go on the following points:
1) There is zero PROOF of any occurance of evolution ( lots of pieced together observations and remains around which a story has been built yet -- but no hard PROOF )

2) That ET would seem to predict ongoing unaided evolution, which has not been observed ( natural selection != evolution ), yet all the ET has to say is "the time frame is too short" -- this avoids falsiability.

3) ET so far appears untestable.

Please responses, other than " you fool you are wrong " are desired, such as actual references to cases testing the falsifiability of ET would be appreciated.

Obviously ID fails on all these counts which is why ETs ridicule it.