Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Panspermian Theory

Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 1:59:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So i noticed this guy in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., looks like hes bringing up the Panspermian theory. The panspermian theory can be read about here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me in terms of microorganisms. But this guy seems to be arguing that full-blown intelligent aliens created or modified the Human Species...(Intelligent Design)
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 1:59:51 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
So i noticed this guy in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., looks like hes bringing up the Panspermian theory. The panspermian theory can be read about here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me in terms of microorganisms. But this guy seems to be arguing that full-blown intelligent aliens created or modified the Human Species...(Intelligent Design)

It's very possible, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely, and doesn't answer any questions (e.g. where did life come from, how does life evolve in a certain way, etc.)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 2:39:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 2:17:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/24/2012 1:59:51 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
So i noticed this guy in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., looks like hes bringing up the Panspermian theory. The panspermian theory can be read about here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me in terms of microorganisms. But this guy seems to be arguing that full-blown intelligent aliens created or modified the Human Species...(Intelligent Design)

It's very possible, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely, and doesn't answer any questions (e.g. where did life come from, how does life evolve in a certain way, etc.)

Precisely, if not for having to work i wouldve added, that its kind of lime begging the question. Because if life here started in that manner, where did that life come from and how did that start?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 4:59:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 2:17:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/24/2012 1:59:51 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
So i noticed this guy in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., looks like hes bringing up the Panspermian theory. The panspermian theory can be read about here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me in terms of microorganisms. But this guy seems to be arguing that full-blown intelligent aliens created or modified the Human Species...(Intelligent Design)

It's very possible, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely,

Based on what mathematical equation? How did YOU determine that it's very unlikely?

and doesn't answer any questions

Yes it does. It answers, what are the origins of the human species on Earth. That's a pretty big answer.

(e.g. where did life come from,

SO FVCKIN WHAT?! It is NOT a requirement that all true facts answer the question "where did life come from. Why do you expect it to answer that? How come you don't dismiss the theory of gravity or relativity on the account that it doesn't answer "where did life come from"?

Btw, the answer to that question is probably abiogenesis.

how does life evolve in a certain way, etc.)

Again, so goddamn what. Why does it need to answer that? A true fact is a true fact regardless of what other questions it answers.

Btw, I am not saying that panspermia is an established true fact, but there is evidence to support it. It's plausibility does not rest on whether it answers two questions that you personally have about life.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 5:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 2:39:21 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 3/24/2012 2:17:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/24/2012 1:59:51 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
So i noticed this guy in this debate, http://www.debate.org..., looks like hes bringing up the Panspermian theory. The panspermian theory can be read about here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me in terms of microorganisms. But this guy seems to be arguing that full-blown intelligent aliens created or modified the Human Species...(Intelligent Design)

It's very possible, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely, and doesn't answer any questions (e.g. where did life come from, how does life evolve in a certain way, etc.)

Precisely, if not for having to work i wouldve added, that its kind of lime begging the question.

False. Do you know what begging the question means?

Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because if life here started in that manner, where did that life come from and how did that start?

You don't always need an explanation for the explanation. Because then you'll need an explanation for the explanation of the explanation, ad infinitum.

If it's found out that we got to Earth through means of Panspermia, that in itself is sufficient enough. Sure, we might be curious about where those aliens come from and what they're about but, don't act like that curiosity is scientific and discounts the theory of panspermia.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 5:53:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 4:59:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
SO FVCKIN WHAT?! It is NOT a requirement that all true facts answer the question "where did life come from. Why do you expect it to answer that? How come you don't dismiss the theory of gravity or relativity on the account that it doesn't answer "where did life come from"?

Well.. if it explained away those questions nice and neat it'd be worth entertaining even if there wasn't direct evidence for such things happening.

He's saying it doesn't... so (given how there's no Actual direct evidence... despite whatever Crazy 1st hand reports you might link to) there's no reason to entertain the idea.

It would seem those Big questions are why people think up this stuff.. as with God...

Neither aliens, nor god, have any real, direct evidence.. and Neither make those "big questions" simpler or more comprehensible. They just sketch out a more complicated, unjustified, picture of things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 6:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 5:53:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/24/2012 4:59:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
SO FVCKIN WHAT?! It is NOT a requirement that all true facts answer the question "where did life come from. Why do you expect it to answer that? How come you don't dismiss the theory of gravity or relativity on the account that it doesn't answer "where did life come from"?

Well.. if it explained away those questions nice and neat it'd be worth entertaining even if there wasn't direct evidence for such things happening.

He's saying it doesn't... so (given how there's no Actual direct evidence... despite whatever Crazy 1st hand reports you might link to) there's no reason to entertain the idea.

It would seem those Big questions are why people think up this stuff.. as with God...

Neither aliens, nor god, have any real, direct evidence.. and Neither make those "big questions" simpler or more comprehensible. They just sketch out a more complicated, unjustified, picture of things.

My bad on the "begging the question" thing. To me, it is plausible, it happens all the time. Still, we do know microorganism can come from "primordial soup" if you will. Cant remember the name of the scientist that experimented with it, but it was found out that the "soup" alone did nothing, but when an electrical charge was added to it Voila! Bacteria.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 6:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By happens all the time I mean asteroids with micro-organism that a alive fall to earth all the time.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:51:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 6:35:53 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 3/24/2012 5:53:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/24/2012 4:59:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
SO FVCKIN WHAT?! It is NOT a requirement that all true facts answer the question "where did life come from. Why do you expect it to answer that? How come you don't dismiss the theory of gravity or relativity on the account that it doesn't answer "where did life come from"?

Well.. if it explained away those questions nice and neat it'd be worth entertaining even if there wasn't direct evidence for such things happening.

He's saying it doesn't... so (given how there's no Actual direct evidence... despite whatever Crazy 1st hand reports you might link to) there's no reason to entertain the idea.

It would seem those Big questions are why people think up this stuff.. as with God...

Neither aliens, nor god, have any real, direct evidence.. and Neither make those "big questions" simpler or more comprehensible. They just sketch out a more complicated, unjustified, picture of things.

My bad on the "begging the question" thing. To me, it is plausible, it happens all the time. Still, we do know microorganism can come from "primordial soup" if you will. Cant remember the name of the scientist that experimented with it, but it was found out that the "soup" alone did nothing, but when an electrical charge was added to it Voila! Bacteria.

Excuse me, sir, but no. No that is NOT what happened. Various amino acids were created in very trace amounts in a racemic mixture (racemic mixture=deadly for life). Not just that but the atmosphere utilized by the experiment (no oxygen and lots of methane-ammonia) was non-existent in primordial earth (we know that oxygen has existed on the planet since nearly the formation of the earth and there is no source for the methane and ammonia other then cryovolcanoes which do not exist on our planet).

Furthemore, bacteria utilizes DNA and RNA. Nucleotides, nucleosides, ribose, deoxyrobise, and the corrosponding phosphates were not created in the spark experiment. In fact, all subsequent spark experiments have completely failed to create cytosine and uracil, key elements of both DNA and RNA. Not to mention ribose and deoxyribose (part of DNA) were not created. AND, even if all of those were somehow created and then somehow polymerized in a perfect double helix via some magical unknown process, we still have the problem were when RNA replicates it replicates onto itself like a closed zipper! The only way to unlock RNA is to use polyermase, which, being an enzyme, wouldn't have existed!

So no. No scientist has created bacteria with a spark experiment. No scientist has caused bacteria to happen spontaneously arise. Abiogenesis is still an unproven hypothesis in regards to the origins of life.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 4:53:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Problem with the Panspermian Theory is that like God. Were Red Herring the question. It doesn't answer the question about how life begain because we would still have to answer how alien life began. It just pushes the question back further. Or we might like God say that they have a Supernatural power aka above human understanding at best. But this is the same as the God explanation. In God the I don't know is hidden in his supernatural ability. In both cases we avoid actually answering how life began. Random happing is just as much a non-answer. To answer anything with random we are at no better a position then being completly ignorant of the fact all together. The fact of the matter as of now is we do not know. But just as we no more then general account of out ancestors we may learn the answer in the futures. But as far as an epistemological truth. We don't know yet.

to make something from nothing.

In both cases we are Red Herringing the I don't know into some other being that we can
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL