Is panspermia a scienctific theory?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]


I think the attempt to monopolize the definition of science is a very poor substitute for thought. Characterize something as unscientific and it sounds like you're really saying something. Far better is to consider the theory or hypothesis and then apply logic, observation, etc.

I'm not that big a fan of ID as it's usually stated. You can accept it and still be as far from a Christian as any atheist. But I argue from the ID standpoint at times to illustrate the weaknesses of some ideas that are considered more "scientific". What really counts is truth and limiting the discussion with artificial labels just truncates a realistic consideration of truth claims. "Scientific" truth is not more true than any other kind of truth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Who's calling FSM real science?


[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes cave to the sarcasm temptation.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the attempt to monopolize the definition of science is a very poor substitute for thought.

[/ QUOTE ] NR may have a point. In a pseudo-democracy or better, we should have a committee of longshoreman and shrimpboat owners vote on what 'science' is, rather than leave it in the hands of scientists. I mean, look at where that has gotten us.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"Scientific" truth is not more true than any other kind of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or even, "why can't my baseball score count during the basketball playoffs. Baseball is just as much a sport as basketball?"
Could it be that scientists are there to invesntigate scientific truths and regardless of the existence or non-existence of other truths or even which is the 'better' truth, ya just don't want spiked shoes on the hardwood.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But I argue from the ID standpoint at times to illustrate the weaknesses of some ideas that are considered more "scientific"

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's what panspermia would look like if expressed in ID terms.-
(A) If life in other parts of the galaxy seeded life forms on earth, we'd see life forms on earth. There are life forms on earth, therefore it arrived from other parts of the galaxy.
(B) if there is an Idesigner we'd see things that appear Idesigned. We see things that look Idesigned, so there must be an Idesigner.
Neither claim is scientific or unscientific, both are simply idiotic.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's what panspermia would look like if expressed in ID terms.-
(A) If life in other parts of the galaxy seeded life forms on earth, we'd see life forms on earth. There are life forms on earth, therefore it arrived from other parts of the galaxy.
(B) if there is an Idesigner we'd see things that appear Idesigned. We see things that look Idesigned, so there must be an Idesigner.
Neither claim is scientific or unscientific, both are simply idiotic


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what panspermia does look like if expressed in atheistic terms.-
(A) If we see life forms on earth, since there is no God and chance is ultimate, there must be life forms in other parts of the galaxy.
(B) if there is no Idesigner we'd see things that appear Idesigned. We see things that look Idesigned, so there must not be an Idesigner.
Neither claim is scientific or unscientific, both are simply idiotic

Here's what evolution does look like if expressed in atheistic terms.-
(A) If we see life forms on earth, since there is no God and chance is ultimate, the fossil record must show a gradual development of life forms. The fossil record does not show a gradual development of life forms, therefore God does not exist and life evolved by chance.
This claim is neither scientific or unscientific, it is simply idiotic

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what evolution does look like if expressed in atheistic terms.-
(A) If we see life forms on earth, since there is no God and chance is ultimate, the fossil record must show a gradual development of life forms. The fossil record does not show a gradual development of life forms, therefore God does not exist and life evolved by chance.
This claim is neither scientific or unscientific, it is simply idiotic

[/ QUOTE ]
So true. If I read an evolutionist or atheist making that claim, Idiotic would be an upgrade.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what evolution does look like if expressed in atheistic terms.-
(A) If we see life forms on earth, since there is no God and chance is ultimate, the fossil record must show a gradual development of life forms. The fossil record does not show a gradual development of life forms, therefore God does not exist and life evolved by chance.
This claim is neither scientific or unscientific, it is simply idiotic

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

A. We see life forms.
B. Life forms procreate.
C. When life forms procreate, the genetic makeup changes slightly.
D. Life forms with genetic makeups that are more conducive to survival will be more likely to pass on their genes than life forms with genetic makeups less conducive to survival.
F. Natural selection must occur.
G. Evolution must occur.

This comes entirely from observation of animal species. It doesn't matter whether they came from God, aliens, the big bang, or the FSM.

[tolbiny]

What other types of truths are there?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What other types of truths are there?


[/ QUOTE ]

To be more accurate, there is only one type of truth, but more than one way of knowing or expressing truth. Other methods besides science include logic, art, intuition, philosophy and revelation. For instance, if a writer said "The sun rose today" he would be expressing truth, but not scientific truth.