Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion

[m_the0ry]

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.

[vhawk01]

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

[Mr. Now]

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)

[Skidoo]

"Evolution" is rigged.

[Hopey]

[ 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.

[m_the0ry]

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.

[Skidoo]

[ 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.

[m_the0ry]

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

[Skidoo]

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

[Hopey]

[ 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.