Ok well lighten up there Matt.
I am the one that used the word "theory" in this thread. And by doing so I didnt think anyone would be so offended by that word. In the article that I cited, and there are other better ones, they mentioned it as a theory.
But the point of the post was not about whether or not it was a "theory", but about whether or not the evidence that the article discusses is legitimate, (as evidence that life began elsewhere.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt "Fritz" Bergin
To: American Science Association
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: Fw: Evidence for panspermia theory
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt "Fritz" Bergin
To: Dick Fischer
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for panspermia theory
I'm just trying to make sure that we don't call this a theory...although I know that this is a term used in the general public to refer to an idea the word has a lot more weight in science. I just don't see how anyone could say that if we find cells on red rain or comets that we can assume that this is the origin of life here. How does that exclude life developing on Earth? How does this conjecture eliminate the other possibilities? Could it be that we haven't been able to produce life in a lab because we don't know the exact conditions of the Earth when life formed? Or is it that life takes a very long time and many tries to get going? I'm not an expert in biology since I only have a minor in it and haven't done any research but those are some questions that I have.
~Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: Evidence for panspermia theory
Hi Matt, you wrote:
Does this hypothesis (because its not a theory at all) really help biology or science at all? Even if its true that we find primitive cells on comets or in red rain or whatever who can say that life didn't start here as well as other places? Is this really science or an athiest God of the Gaps hypothesis?
Heck, it's not even a hypothesis. Just call it conjecture. But a previously existing planet would have had far more time to develop life than we have had on earth. Life popped up here almost as soon as the earth was cool enough to keep from frying it on the spot. The only reason I bring it up here is just to head off any conclusions that God couldn't have been involved in the process if we discover life did come from outer space. And I'm no God-of-the-gaps fan either.
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt "Fritz" Bergin [mailto:fritziematt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:51 PM
To: Dick Fischer; American Science Association
Subject: Re: Evidence for panspermia theory
Does this hypothesis (because its not a theory at all) really help biology or science at all? Even if its true that we find primitive cells on comets or in red rain or whatever who can say that life didn't start here as well as other places? Is this really science or an athiest God of the Gaps hypothesis?
~Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: Evidence for panspermia theory
Hi David, you wrote:
It certainly takes astonishing faith to believe the panspermia theory!
Leaving out the how or when, let's just say God created life - somehow, somewhere. Is there any problem with his having created life initially on an earlier planet circling an earlier sun? The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Our sun is no more than 5 million years old. That's a lot of time for lots to happen in between. Stars were born. Stars died. Stars have planets. Who can say life was created here on this planet for the first time? That's all.
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Bundrick, David
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Janice Matchett; drsyme@cablespeed.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Evidence for panspermia theory
"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, 'I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith'" (Matt. 8:10). It certainly takes astonishing faith to believe the panspermia theory!
As an astronomer friend of mine has said, "One of the reasons that Anthony Flew rejected atheism a few years ago was because of the total failure of numerous scientists around the world to create life spontaneously in a laboratory, under the most ideal conditions. This quest, which has gone on for 24 hours each day for more than 50 years, has produced nothing. Flew was honest enough to see the handwriting on the wall. But, such a conclusion is simply too repugnant for the naturalist, because it necessitates a creator."
David Bundrick
Received on Tue Mar 7 22:40:06 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 07 2006 - 22:40:06 EST