NationStates Jolt Archive

I am reading Deception Point by Dave Brown and came across the term panspermia. One of the characters said. "Panspermia is the theory that life was seeded here from another planet."

Well, the book is fiction so I decided to check and see if there really is such a theory, and volia, good old Google gave me this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eg0&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Panspermia&spell=1 and for you Wicki addicts we have this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

I guess my question is doesn't this theory exclude both creationism and evolution. or could evolution and panspermia be compatable with each other?

What do you think?

But how was the original life created in the first place?

But how was the original life created in the first place?

The theory doesn't go into that.

It excludes creationism. Evolution itself makes no assumption on how life got here, just about what it did once it was here.

Evolution doesn't address how life was created, and neither does panspermia. That said, the two theories are not incompatable with each other either.

The theory doesn't go into that.

Well, yeah, so it doesn't exclude evolutionism. Or creationism, for that matter, if it's non-Biblical creationism.

I could be wrong but I don't think evolution concerns itself with the actual origin of life but merely how it changes in response to stuff and stuff...

no it would not be an alternative to either evolution or creationism

evolution doesnt care HOW life got started on earth, it describe the process through which life changed through the eons until we have the species that exist today.

creationism (in its broadest sense) only requires that GOD sent the aliens to seed life on earth and that HE drove the process of change throughout the eons.

Well, yeah, so it doesn't exclude evolutionism. Or creationism, for that matter, if it's non-Biblical creationism.

:confused: Could you please explain "non-Biblical creationism?"

:confused: Could you please explain "non-Biblical creationism?"

The idea that life was created by some form of higher being, but not strictly according to the bible. Meaning life could have been created somewhere else in the universe and then distributed.

:confused: Could you please explain "non-Biblical creationism?"

intelligent design is non-biblical creationism.

Panspermia has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. It's merely a theory about how life started on Earth, not anywhere else. Actually, if anything, it excludes creationism and emphasizes evolution.

And frankly, I find it quite plausible, all things considered. Of course, it doesn't answer the question of abiogenesis, but as far as I know nothing does yet.

intelligent design is non-biblical creationism.

Intelligent design CLAIMS to be non-biblical creationism, but its only adherants seem to be Christians, so the claim is somewhat flimsy. As is the theory.

Intelligent design CLAIMS to be non-biblical creationism, but its only adherants seem to be Christians, so the claim is somewhat flimsy. As is the theory.

ok ok

intelligent design is CHRISTIAN non-biblical creationism.


the non-biblical part means that it doesnt use the story of the garden of eden as a starting point for the universe. they acknowlege that evolution (of a sorts) occurs, they just claim that it is guided by an intelligent force (thinly disguised version of the christian god)

I guess my question is doesn't this theory exclude both creationism and evolution. or could evolution and panspermia be compatable with each other?

What do you think?

Like evolution, panspermia does not even speak to the issues that creationism does, so neither theory actually excludes creationism. In fact, there is no way that science in any form can even address the issue of creationism, since there is no way to prove or disprove God. Creationism is philosophy, evolution and panspermia are science. Kind of like trying to use math to prove the existance of love.

Panspermia and evolution are extremely compatable; it is possible the seeds of life arrived here from somewhere else and then grew and changed.

I am reading Deception Point by Dave Brown

Dan, not Dave, Brown.

and came across the term panspermia. One of the characters said. "Panspermia is the theory that life was seeded here from another planet."

Exogenisis is a better term for the hypothesis.

Well, the book is fiction so I decided to check and see if there really is such a theory, and volia, good old Google gave me this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eg0&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Panspermia&spell=1 and for you Wicki addicts we have this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Well, yes, it's a well known hypothesis.

I guess my question is doesn't this theory exclude both creationism and evolution.

Not exactly. Exogenisis simply transferes the problem of the origins elsewhere.

or could evolution and panspermia be compatable with each other?

There isn't another reasonable explanation yet beyond evolutionary abiogenisis. There are reasonable arguments for both geogenisis and exogenisis. And neither contradicts evolution.

What do you think?

Seeing as creationism simply posits a sophisticated magical origin of life not really different from the old Aristotlian idea of spontaneous generation - meat produces maggots, etc., and is to be rejected as non-science, evolutionary abiogenisis is the only theory we have.

That being said, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life is a decent overview of the current thought.

One of the characters said. "Panspermia is the theory that life was seeded here from another planet."

I guess my question is doesn't this theory exclude both creationism and evolution. or could evolution and panspermia be compatable with each other?


But then where did the other planet get life? Did they bring all of the earth animals with them?

You're back to where you started.

ok ok

intelligent design is CHRISTIAN non-biblical creationism.


the non-biblical part means that it doesnt use the story of the garden of eden as a starting point for the universe. they acknowlege that evolution (of a sorts) occurs, they just claim that it is guided by an intelligent force (thinly disguised version of the christian god)

Very thinly. And you can be sure that if intelligent design were to become widely accepted, the bible would work its way back in somehow.

As to non-biblical, there are lots of other religions that provide gods and goddesses who create everything from chaos. But the heart of creationism IS religious, so to tag it with "non-biblical" is really just shooting for a different flavor of "God did it".

Very thinly. And you can be sure that if intelligent design were to become widely accepted, the bible would work its way back in somehow.

As to non-biblical, there are lots of other religions that provide gods and goddesses who create everything from chaos. But the heart of creationism IS religious, so to tag it with "non-biblical" is really just shooting for a different flavor of "God did it".

non biblical doesnt mean non religious.

intelligent design is someone's bright idea of how to sneak religion into US public schools. if its "science" then its wrong to keep it out.

the courts and most public officials know that its NOT science so it has had limited success in reaching its goal.

Why not? an original lifeform, no matter were it came from evolved.

non biblical doesnt mean non religious.

intelligent design is someone's bright idea of how to sneak religion into US public schools. if its "science" then its wrong to keep it out.

the courts and most public officials know that its NOT science so it has had limited success in reaching its goal.

You are right...

I think the point I was getting to was that of all the non-biblical creation myths, intelligent design is the least non-biblical of the bunch.

Intelligent design CLAIMS to be non-biblical creationism, but its only adherants seem to be Christians, so the claim is somewhat flimsy. As is the theory.

Dembski admitted that ID is basically the Logos Theology of the Gospel of John, presented in terms of information theory.

they just claim that it is guided by an intelligent force (thinly disguised version of the christian god)

Not Zeus? :eek:

Dan, not Dave, Brown.

My bad. I stand corrected.

Not Zeus? :eek:No. Rather a very corrupted interpretation of Enki.

Panspermia is kinda unrelated to evolution. All it says is that life first came here from other places in the form of bacteria in meteorites... life still would have evolved from there. It's an alternate to abiogenesis happening on Earth, that's about it.

Creationism is still bunk. As is intelligent design.

Creationism is still bunk. As is intelligent design.

That's redundant. But I repeat myself. ;)

Invariably, creationists are arguing their point, even if they're trying to make it sound like they're participating in an argument that deals with your points.

First cause scenario, always - not a mechanical understanding so much as a semantic appreciation.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A5DA8D-E7F2-99DF-32F53BCD97024B43

I beleive in cube theory. you know, from the movie transformers.

"Before the dawn of time, there was the cube"

-Optimus Prime

Like evolution, panspermia does not even speak to the issues that creationism does, so neither theory actually excludes creationism. In fact, there is no way that science in any form can even address the issue of creationism, since there is no way to prove or disprove God. Creationism is philosophy, evolution and panspermia are science. Kind of like trying to use math to prove the existance of love.

Panspermia and evolution are extremely compatable; it is possible the seeds of life arrived here from somewhere else and then grew and changed.

I disagree. Sure, we can't prove or disprove God, but science does not prove things anyway. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. However, science can find evidence that counters specific gods. We can, for example, find evidence that the earth is far older than the 6,000-10,000 year old age indicated by the Bible, that there has been no global flood, &c. Just because we cannot prove that any specific God does not exist, does not mean that there is an equal chance that said God exists as there is that said God does not exist.

In any event, even if it really were true that there we could find no evidence in either direction, then you have to remember that the burden of proof is upon the one making the affirmative claim. Otherwise, we must accept that it is equally valid to believe that Russell's teapot exists as it is not to believe that it exists. Would you claim that Russell's teapot exists, simply because it cannot be disproven?

I disagree. Sure, we can't prove or disprove God, but science does not prove things anyway. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. However, science can find evidence that counters specific gods. We can, for example, find evidence that the earth is far older than the 6,000-10,000 year old age indicated by the Bible, that there has been no global flood, &c. Just because we cannot prove that any specific God does not exist, does not mean that there is an equal chance that said God exists as there is that said God does not exist.

In any event, even if it really were true that there we could find no evidence in either direction, then you have to remember that the burden of proof is upon the one making the affirmative claim. Otherwise, we must accept that it is equally valid to believe that Russell's teapot exists as it is not to believe that it exists. Would you claim that Russell's teapot exists, simply because it cannot be disproven?

Mirroring philosophies.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12940435&postcount=65

I beleive in cube theory. you know, from the movie transformers.

"Before the dawn of time, there was the cube"

-Optimus Prime

Gene Ray (http://www.timecube.com/) is the Transformer's God? :eek:

Well, yeah, so it doesn't exclude evolutionism. Or creationism, for that matter, if it's non-Biblical creationism.

Doesn't even exclude that if you theorize that Eden was another planet and Jehova put Adam and Eve into his space ship when he booted their asses out . . .

:confused: Could you please explain "non-Biblical creationism?"

Among other things the Navajo creation myth is not Biblical . . .

I disagree. Sure, we can't prove or disprove God, but science does not prove things anyway. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. However, science can find evidence that counters specific gods. We can, for example, find evidence that the earth is far older than the 6,000-10,000 year old age indicated by the Bible, that there has been no global flood, &c. Just because we cannot prove that any specific God does not exist, does not mean that there is an equal chance that said God exists as there is that said God does not exist.

In any event, even if it really were true that there we could find no evidence in either direction, then you have to remember that the burden of proof is upon the one making the affirmative claim. Otherwise, we must accept that it is equally valid to believe that Russell's teapot exists as it is not to believe that it exists. Would you claim that Russell's teapot exists, simply because it cannot be disproven?

I was not addressing the validity of belief. This is not an issue that science can address either. Whether or not god exists is unprovable. What you BELIEVE about the existance of god then falls outside of the realm of science.

Yes, one can argue that it is beholden upon believers to prove their case, and certainly, science can be used to disprove theories like young earth, but my point was that ultimately, the issue of creationism is not one that can be addressed by science at all. Science can render it unlikely, but cannot disprove it. However, as creationism is NOT science, it need not even be discussed in the same arena.

And no, I am not arguing FOR creationism. I BELIEVE it is a whole lot of hooey made up by people who don't feel that their lives amount to anything without a god giving them special treatment. But that is a belief, not science.

Creationism is not an alternative to evolution, and vice versa.
Panspermia isn't an alternative to evolution, and vice versa.
Panspermia isn't an alternative to creationism, and vice versa.