Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

...and religion encourages a very closed mind.

Don't click that link.

This means you.

http://www.panspermia.org/

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and religion encourages a very closed mind.

Don't click that link.

This means you.

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Q. Isn't life as likely to have started here on Earth as anywhere else?
A. Yes. But that likelihood is still effectively zero.

http://www.panspermia.org/

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Q. Isn't life as likely to have started here on Earth as anywhere else?
A. Yes. But that likelihood is still effectively zero.

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say its more likely here than anywhere else, if I get to pick my anywhere.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Your posting behavior is consistent with having a closed mind.

Did you read any part of the web site whatsoever?

Are you a Evolution fundamentalist?

http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm
[ QUOTE ]

Modern panspermia proposes comets as the delivery vehicles. Comets can protect cells from UV and cosmic radiation damage; and comets can drop cells high in the atmosphere to float gently down. If bacterial spores can be immortal, as it appears, comets could spread life throughout a galaxy.

3. Strong Panspermia
So far we have been talking about only the origin of life on Earth or on any given planet. Strong panspermia extends modern panspermia to deal with evolution as well. In strong panspermia, the genes for evolutionary advances are not written by copying mistakes and reshuffling within an original set of bacterial genes. Instead they are installed by gene transfer. If these genes are spread by infectious agents such as viruses, they can transform whole populations in a single generation. The importance of gene transfer in evolution has gradually become recognized within mainstream biology. For example, a study that appeared in Nature (5) in May 2000, reported:

"It is difficult to account for the ability of bacteria to exploit new environments by the accumulation of point mutations alone. In fact, none of the phenotypic traits that are typically used to distinguish the enteric bacteria Escherichia coli from its pathogenic sister species Salmonella enterica can be attributed to the point mutational evolution of genes common to both. Instead, there is growing evidence that lateral gene transfer has played an integral role in the evolution of bacterial genomes, and in the diversification and speciation of the enterics and other bacteria."


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your posting behavior is consistent with having a closed mind.

Did you read any part of the web site whatsoever?

Are you a Evolution fundamentalist?

http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm
[ QUOTE ]

Modern panspermia proposes comets as the delivery vehicles. Comets can protect cells from UV and cosmic radiation damage; and comets can drop cells high in the atmosphere to float gently down. If bacterial spores can be immortal, as it appears, comets could spread life throughout a galaxy.

3. Strong Panspermia
So far we have been talking about only the origin of life on Earth or on any given planet. Strong panspermia extends modern panspermia to deal with evolution as well. In strong panspermia, the genes for evolutionary advances are not written by copying mistakes and reshuffling within an original set of bacterial genes. Instead they are installed by gene transfer. If these genes are spread by infectious agents such as viruses, they can transform whole populations in a single generation. The importance of gene transfer in evolution has gradually become recognized within mainstream biology. For example, a study that appeared in Nature (5) in May 2000, reported:

"It is difficult to account for the ability of bacteria to exploit new environments by the accumulation of point mutations alone. In fact, none of the phenotypic traits that are typically used to distinguish the enteric bacteria Escherichia coli from its pathogenic sister species Salmonella enterica can be attributed to the point mutational evolution of genes common to both. Instead, there is growing evidence that lateral gene transfer has played an integral role in the evolution of bacterial genomes, and in the diversification and speciation of the enterics and other bacteria."


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Its probably consistent with a whole bunch of theories, close-mindedness being simply one of them. I guess you will have to await more evidence before coming to your conclusion.

And no I didn't read any of your website. I also didn't criticize it in any way, so you might want to actually wait for attacks before you need defend against them.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and religion encourages a very closed mind.

Don't click that link.

This means you.

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as Dogmatic Evolution. You are obviously trolling.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

I really liked Mission to Mars; I don't care what anybody says! It was a good movie and Gary Sinese did a great job!!!

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

lol you idiot, you forgot to include the link! Here it is:

http://www.panspermia.org/

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really liked Mission to Mars; I don't care what anybody says! It was a good movie and Gary Sinese did a great job!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. 9/10.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Dogmatic Evolution!!! What's that? LOL, you are no scientist, obviously

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

For actual examples of real dogmatic Evolutionist thinking, simply examine the SMP forum of www.twoplustwo.com. There are hundreds of examples here.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
For actual examples of real dogmatic Evolutionist thinking, simply examine the SMP forum of www.twoplustwo.com. There are hundreds of examples here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only there were some alternative!

We are in luck, I found another site that might do the trick:

http://www.panspermia.org/

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For actual examples of real dogmatic Evolutionist thinking, simply examine the SMP forum of www.twoplustwo.com. There are hundreds of examples here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only there were some alternative!

We are in luck, I found another site that might do the trick:

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

What's this www.panspermia.org I keep hearing about?

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

dogma - a doctrine authoritatively laid down.

I think that's your meaning more or less, in which case the official version of the origin of the species is obviously a dogma, despite the protests of certain pretend scientists.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
dogma - a doctrine authoritatively laid down.

I think that's your meaning more or less, in which case the official version of the origin of the species is obviously a dogma, despite the protests of certain pretend scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously a dogma. Translation. I'm to ignorant and/or stupid to understand the evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so I'll just keep believing it happened the way the Bible says it did.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis, but it really just transfers the question of how life originated to another location, unless you postulate a universe that's infinite backward in time, which certainly is contrary to current theory in cosmology.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dogma - a doctrine authoritatively laid down.

I think that's your meaning more or less, in which case the official version of the origin of the species is obviously a dogma, despite the protests of certain pretend scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously a dogma. Translation. I'm to ignorant and/or stupid to understand the evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so I'll just keep believing it happened the way the Bible says it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

New and improved translation:

I know enough of the methods of science to refuse to eat a bowl of sh-- even though the official "truth" calls it ice cream.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and religion encourages a very closed mind.

Don't click that link.

This means you.

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay I won't click that link.

But I assume it's about Michael Jackson and Peter Pan.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis, but it really just transfers the question of how life originated to another location, unless you postulate a universe that's infinite backward in time, which certainly is contrary to current theory in cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it does more than that.
If life originated on Earth, the variety of environments in which it could occur is much lower than the variety of environments elsewhere in the Universe.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Panspermia has come a long way. The theory used to be a joke, now it's commonly referred to as a possibility as we are able to probe the composition of alien objects with greater resolution. Even if we have proof that life exists in other parts of the universe (which I think is highly likely) they will not be in our solar system and thus will be 4+ light years away. Possibly in our reach in the future, but not for now.

Regardless, I think a better question is this.

As sentient life, is it our duty to commit panspermia ourselves once we are certain of our own demise? We may not be able to travel faster than light, but we certainly could send out billions of little cryogenically frozen "noah's arcs" to planets we think just might be habitable and hope to populate them, either with ourselves or just highly resiliant microbes to start life over again.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Could you guys link me to any websites that discuss panspermia?

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

You can't defend the rabid orthodoxy of the dogmatic wing of the the Evolution camp. These are some of the most closed minds around. Its the pot calling the kettle black. It's a joke for goodness sake.

Just look at the incredulous response to even the suggestion that life did not originate in some lifeless puddle on this planet. And we all know why. It's the elephant in the room, a theoretical "external-to-earth" source of life. Such an origin causes dogmatic-E types to have to INVALIDATE an entire world view-- an entire system of belief.

Those who espouse dogmatic insistence on earth-based origin-of-life Evolution (big "E") are MUCH more pathetic than those who THEY say are 100% wrong. More pathetic, because said insistence is cloaked in science, and pretends to be progressive and open-minded. It is not. Far from it.

For example, most dogmatic-E types are unwilling and unable to even ENTERTAIN the Cosmic Ancestry theory. Exhibit A is this thread.

I mean think of it. Potentially trillions of planets where life could originate. And they insist on Earth.

It sounds laughable because it IS laughable.

Most evolutionists are unwilling to entertain any ideas outside the orthodoxy. Life came from unlife on this planet. Period.

And that's just the 'origin' piece.

The 'ongoing evolution' piece is even worse, even though there are other theories that produce identical results.

These people and these beliefs are holding back science. Kids today are taught there is no debate. Life on earth comes from a cell-less puddle on earth, and that, is that. Got that? of course it makes sense. Why? Because everyone says so.

The irony is that if there is nothing to discuss, there is nothing to learn. Dogmatic-E thinkers are done learning.

Exhibit A is the response here, to the www.panspermia.com link.

Congrats to those who choose to examine the link and the theory, without judgement, investing time and attention, and choosing to discuss it logically, without the blinding fog of insistent, undebatable and 100% dogmatic-E orthodoxy.


http://www.panspermia.com/bacteria.htm
[ QUOTE ]

I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole goddamn Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [censored] about it. — Pete Conrad (1)
.
.
On April 20, 1967, the unmanned lunar lander Surveyor 3 landed near Oceanus Procellarum on the surface of the moon. One of the things aboard was a television camera. Two-and-a-half years later, on November 20, 1969, Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan L. Bean recovered the camera. When NASA scientists examined it back on Earth they were surprised to find specimens of Streptococcus mitis that were still alive. Because of the precautions the astronauts had taken, NASA could be sure that the germs were inside the camera when it was retrieved, so they must have been there before the Surveyor 3 was launched. These bacteria had survived for 31 months in the vacuum of the moon's atmosphere. Perhaps NASA shouldn't have been surprised, because there are other bacteria that thrive under near-vacuum pressure on the earth today. Anyway, we now know that the vacuum of space is not a fatal problem for bacteria.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions."
--Sir Leslie Stephen - (1832-1904)

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

"Evolution" is rigged.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean think of it. Potentially trillions of planets where life could originate. And they insist on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement makes no sense. Which evolutionists are saying that life exists *only* on Earth?

Also, I'm curious: why is "panspermia" so important to you? I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)...but I can't understand why you'd be so passionate about panspermia. It's a theory, no more, no less.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Sorry Mr. Now but you're taking this theory a little too far if you're claiming it's more than a theory. It's a nonsequiter to assume that because bacteria can live in space they are the origin of all life on Earth. There's x percentage that life started on earth and y percentage that life started elsewhere. To analyze it any further than that is to claim you know things that you don't actually know.

As far as I know the first cell is where curriculum starts in all public schools. I could be wrong but I never remember seeing someone even attempt to claim they knew how the first cell came about.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have read (or imagine you have read) something from Sharkey to that effect, but I'll correct the record by disabusing you of something right now. I have no concern regarding an acceptance of "evolution" in terms of burning forever or the like. My skepticism is motivated by facts and logic.

Resume trolling.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

I honestly don't see how anyone could explain species diversity with "facts and logic" without believing evolution, please explain.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

I honestly don't see where anyone has explained the diversity of species, period.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have read (or imagine you have read) something from Sharkey to that effect, but I'll correct the record by disabusing you of something right now. I have no concern regarding an acceptance of "evolution" in terms of burning forever or the like. My skepticism is motivated by facts and logic.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey used to say the same thing. Then he'd go and completely ignore facts and logic in every post he'd make about evolution. Much like you do.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see where anyone has explained the diversity of species, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for that Darwin guy.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have read (or imagine you have read) something from Sharkey to that effect, but I'll correct the record by disabusing you of something right now. I have no concern regarding an acceptance of "evolution" in terms of burning forever or the like. My skepticism is motivated by facts and logic.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey used to say the same thing. Then he'd go and completely ignore facts and logic in every post he'd make about evolution. Much like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm sure you are only too ready to catch me out on my facts and logic for the sake of science.

However, I remind you that, as a scientist, you are also obliged to present arguments that are backed by relevant and specific evidence, not the invertebrates you have wheeled out so far.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have read (or imagine you have read) something from Sharkey to that effect, but I'll correct the record by disabusing you of something right now. I have no concern regarding an acceptance of "evolution" in terms of burning forever or the like. My skepticism is motivated by facts and logic.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey used to say the same thing. Then he'd go and completely ignore facts and logic in every post he'd make about evolution. Much like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm sure you are only too ready to catch me out on my facts and logic for the sake of science.

However, I remind you that, as a scientist, you are also obliged to present arguments that are backed by relevant and specific evidence, not the invertebrates you have wheeled out so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't try to play your Sharkey games with me. We both know that no evidence will be considered "relevant" by you. We've all seen your song and dance, and it's gotten very old.

Besides, when did I say I am a scientist? If you want to debate a scientist, debate with Wacki or Rduke. Of course, that might be hard since I believe that they both blocked you long ago.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand Skidoo/Sharkey's motivation for arguing against evolution (as he believes that he'll burn for all eternity if he accepts it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have read (or imagine you have read) something from Sharkey to that effect, but I'll correct the record by disabusing you of something right now. I have no concern regarding an acceptance of "evolution" in terms of burning forever or the like. My skepticism is motivated by facts and logic.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey used to say the same thing. Then he'd go and completely ignore facts and logic in every post he'd make about evolution. Much like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm sure you are only too ready to catch me out on my facts and logic for the sake of science.

However, I remind you that, as a scientist, you are also obliged to present arguments that are backed by relevant and specific evidence, not the invertebrates you have wheeled out so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't try to play your Sharkey games with me. We both know that no evidence will be considered "relevant" by you. We've all seen your song and dance, and it's gotten very old.

Besides, when did I say I am a scientist? If you want to debate a scientist, debate with Wacki or Rduke. Of course, that might be hard since I believe that they both blocked you long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the evidence won't be considered relevant because it won't be relevant. It is YOU who are playing the game. The way you are constantly trolling me is prima facie evidence of that.

I've never posted much to Wacki, but I don't believe Rduke ever seriously tried to discuss anything with me. He simply reintroduced irrelevant arguments, made various baffling accusations and finally acted exasperated and exited. I don't know what his motivations were, and it's possible they were legitimate, but that's how it appeared to me. You can go back and read the exchanges.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

I used to feel the exact same way about the dogmatic physicists that trot out the tired 'refraction' theory of rainbow creation.

Then I turned 3, and realized that just because somebody doesn't want to waste their time explaining complex things to morons doesn't mean that they are dogmatic, ignorant, close-minded, or anything of the sort. It just means they don't have time for you. You had your chance in school, and you apparently didn't take advantage.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

Great OP, Mr. Now.

This is the first I've heard of panspermia, but it's quite intriguing. I've only read the introduction thusfar, but it appears quite valid - I like the way the chronology of the idea was represented in the article.

I've come across the word Gaia many times, but never heard it used specifically in this way: I find this idea also to be quite fascinating.

I don't find anything offensive, OP, though I'm not surprised you're under fire. Once things get stagnant for a while, it's easy for convictions to grow. Once you throw a bunch of individuals into a group, I'd wager the convictions manifest even hastier.

I'm going to read a bit more about the site, I'm curious how these particular breeds of thinkers are received amongst the rest of the scientific community.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Great OP, Mr. Now.

This is the first I've heard of panspermia, but it's quite intriguing. I've only read the introduction thusfar, but it appears quite valid - I like the way the chronology of the idea was represented in the article.

I've come across the word Gaia many times, but never heard it used specifically in this way: I find this idea also to be quite fascinating.

I don't find anything offensive, OP, though I'm not surprised you're under fire. Once things get stagnant for a while, it's easy for convictions to grow. Once you throw a bunch of individuals into a group, I'd wager the convictions manifest even hastier.

I'm going to read a bit more about the site, I'm curious how these particular breeds of thinkers are received amongst the rest of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost certain that I am being 'levelled' here.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great OP, Mr. Now.

This is the first I've heard of panspermia, but it's quite intriguing. I've only read the introduction thusfar, but it appears quite valid - I like the way the chronology of the idea was represented in the article.

I've come across the word Gaia many times, but never heard it used specifically in this way: I find this idea also to be quite fascinating.

I don't find anything offensive, OP, though I'm not surprised you're under fire. Once things get stagnant for a while, it's easy for convictions to grow. Once you throw a bunch of individuals into a group, I'd wager the convictions manifest even hastier.

I'm going to read a bit more about the site, I'm curious how these particular breeds of thinkers are received amongst the rest of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost certain that I am being 'levelled' here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my honest response. I try to post as straightforward as possible - I'm really turned off by the ElD-puppet-master style of posting (not to wage war, I do, in fact, like ElD as a poster.)

I may have some unconscious motive, though, that not-even-I am aware of, mwahahaha. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Great OP, Mr. Now.

This is the first I've heard of panspermia, but it's quite intriguing. I've only read the introduction thusfar, but it appears quite valid - I like the way the chronology of the idea was represented in the article.

I've come across the word Gaia many times, but never heard it used specifically in this way: I find this idea also to be quite fascinating.

I don't find anything offensive, OP, though I'm not surprised you're under fire. Once things get stagnant for a while, it's easy for convictions to grow. Once you throw a bunch of individuals into a group, I'd wager the convictions manifest even hastier.

I'm going to read a bit more about the site, I'm curious how these particular breeds of thinkers are received amongst the rest of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLROFLMAOWTF!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Praxis101, I would have taken any bet that you did not read the whole thread before posting this. How about you read the thread carefully, then look at your post again. I hope you find it really obvious what I'm getting at.

Re: Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great OP, Mr. Now.

This is the first I've heard of panspermia, but it's quite intriguing. I've only read the introduction thusfar, but it appears quite valid - I like the way the chronology of the idea was represented in the article.

I've come across the word Gaia many times, but never heard it used specifically in this way: I find this idea also to be quite fascinating.

I don't find anything offensive, OP, though I'm not surprised you're under fire. Once things get stagnant for a while, it's easy for convictions to grow. Once you throw a bunch of individuals into a group, I'd wager the convictions manifest even hastier.

I'm going to read a bit more about the site, I'm curious how these particular breeds of thinkers are received amongst the rest of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLROFLMAOWTF!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Praxis101, I would have taken any bet that you did not read the whole thread before posting this. How about you read the thread carefully, then look at your post again. I hope you find it really obvious what I'm getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weeell, I see it isn't well-received here (I did read the thread quasi-carefully) - but I imagine the legitimate scientific community may, in fact, be open minded.

I do not know many scientists (or any well-educated individuals, for that matter), and do not really follow the scientific community much. This was simply one of the thoughts I found myself encountering. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]