Another vote for panspermia

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - Are you implying that an arrowhead found by an archaeologist in an isolated location is not interpreted to have intelligent design?<br /><br />Can you post such an example?<br /><br />I have never heard of such an example.<br /><br />Here is an extension of my illustration, which is one reason Hoyle suspects intelligent design for life:<br /><br />“Perceived by the Things Made”<br /><br />"If crude stone tools prove the existence of a designer, with far greater force do not living creatures of intricate design declare the existence of a wise and powerful Creator?<br /><br />IF THERE is a rockslide in the mountains, we expect to see a jumble of boulders where it comes to rest at the bottom. We would not believe our eyes if all the boulders came to rest in the form of a beautiful rock house—for a house requires design and purposeful work. And there is no design without a designer, or purposeful work without an intelligent worker. This agrees with the Bible’s statement at Hebrews 3:4: “Every house is constructed by someone.”<br /><br />A scientist digs in the rubble of the earth and finds a round, oblong stone that is smooth and has a groove circling the middle. He has no doubt but that it was shaped by a primitive man. He is convinced that it was attached to a stick by a leather thong and used as a hammer or a weapon. Similarly, he finds a flat stone with a sharp edge and is sure that it was made by a “Stone Age” man for use as a knife or a scraper. Or, a small piece of sharp flint shaped like an arrowhead convinces him that it was designed by man to use on the tip of an arrow or a spear. Such purposeful, designed things, the scientist concludes, are not products of chance.<br /><br />The work reflects the worker. These tools and weapons are crude. Hence, their makers are considered primitive, for apes do not make weapons, and those of modern man are of ingenious design. So the scientist places the man who made the stone items in a stone age, and speculates that his appea

 

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - You posted:<br /><br />"An arrowhead is assumed to be by intellegent design because it is KNOWN to have been formed that way."<br /><br />And how is it known? From what I have researched, it is simple likelyhood - none of the many archaeological sites I have researched specify strict laws of probability.<br /><br />Consider, for example, these websites (feel free to post others):<br /><br />http://coas.missouri.edu/mas/articles/articlearrowhead.html<br /><br />The article shows what may have been thought to be an arrowhead actually was not. Note, however, that no hint these may have been chance shaping or flaking of rock by non-living geological processes is made. It is always assumed by archaeologists to be man-made.<br /><br />See this link for pictures of typical arrowheads:<br /><br />http://coas.missouri.edu/mas/programs/arrowheadbrochure.pdf<br /><br />Note that these include shapes that are more likely by chance than those with the etched (flaked, etc.) portion in our above article I quoted. <br /><br />Note this also at this link:<br /><br />http://history.fnal.gov/arohead1.html<br /><br />Note that not all arrowheads are found in a confirmed archaeological context:<br /><br />From:<br /><br />http://www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/FAQ/arch2.htm<br /><br />Find out the age of my arrowhead collection? <br />The age of arrowheads and spear points can only be approximated, unless they are well-documented in a precisely dated archaeological context. Many projectile point styles persisted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years and were used by a number of different cultural groups.<br /><br />After over one hour of searching, I have yet to find any reference to an a

 

[newtonian]

chew_on_this - Sorry, I haven't chewed on that Sciam article you originally linked to.<br /><br />Thank you for the link and i will study it and respond later.

 

[newtonian]

bonezelite - Thank you. I try.<br /><br />Feel free to comment on thread theme.<br /><br />To me, it seems likely that at least a few amino acids rained down on the water covered surface of early earth.<br /><br />However, I am still studying panspermia models indicating far more complex molecules may have seeded earth in its early history.<br /><br />I would assume that the process continues if it existed in the past.<br /><br />However, sudden jumps in genetic content of species does not have to be from cosmic sources.<br /><br />Geneticists have recently discovered gene sharing and gene swapping - even across species barriers!<br /><br />One dangerous example is the sharing of antibiotic resistant genes across species barriers by bacteria - thus giving antibiotic resistance suddenly to previously non-resistant species of bacteria.<br /><br />Very dangerous, btw.

 

[newtonian]

chew_on_this - OK, I have read enough of the 11/05 Scientific article concerning panspermia to make a few comments. First, the overview:<br /><br />"Did Life Come from Another World?: Overview/Life from Space <br />By David Warmflash and Benjamin Weiss <br /> <br /> The panspermia hypothesis posits that living cells or their precursors could have emerged on another planet or moon billions of years ago and hitched a ride to Earth on a meteorite. <br />A small fraction of the rocks blasted o ff Mars by asteroid or comet impacts could have reached Earth in just a few years. <br />Researchers plan to evaluate the likelihood of panspermia by studying whether microorganisms can survive an interplanetary journey." - Scientific <br />American, 11/05<br /><br />Actually the article reported on studies which show life could survive the journey - interesting.<br /><br />My main comment:<br /><br />Wouldn't it be just as likely, perhaps more likely, that an impact on earth - e.g. the one postulated to have caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs - caused meteorite impacts on Mars which seeded Mars with life from earth?<br />

 

[thebigcat]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Wouldn't it be likely, perhaps more likely, that an impact on Earth - e.g. the one postulated to have caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs - caused meteorite impacts on Mars which seeded Mars with life from Earth?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Excelent idea, Newtonian, but no, it wouldn't be more likely for the following reasons:<br /><br />A hunk of rock thrown up from the Earth by a meteor collision would have to make a journey <b>outward</b> from the sun, kind of like a salmon swimming 60 million miles upstream to spawn. You can do some simple calculations in orbital mechanics to figure the necessary initial velocity for that to occur. In fact, it has been theorized that most of the Earth orbit crossing asteroids (ECOs) are debris from various impacts, most notably from the one which gave us our wonderful moon.<br /><br />Also, since Mars is smaller and therefore cooled quicker it has a much earlier window for the feasibility of thriving life. The planet went from molten surface to solid surface with a dense atmosphere replenished by vulcanism to geologically dead with the atmosphere being blasted awqy by solar wind before the Cambrian Explosion happened on Earth. If any life still clings tenaciously in pockets on Mars it has no mechanism for motion, and would be stuck in place, unable to spread to other parts of the planet, so even had life from here managed to Reverse Transpermia it's way there, it would have found an environment completely inimical at worst, and offering no chance for siad life to thrive at best.<br /><br />Still, as I stated before, excelent idea, and I feel a bit like Kryten pointing out the two small flaws. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - Good points. I don't give up on ideas easily. The impact on earth could have been of very high velocity, and some rocks (=meteorites) could have been propelled out with high velocity. <br /><br />Kind of like playing pool - the velocity of the incoming billiard ball is transfered to the outgoing billiard ball.<br /><br />Of course, it depends on the trajectory, the angle, whether it goes into the pocket for transpermia!<br /><br />Didn't we use an inner planet in some space probes for a slingshot effect to propel to an outer orbit.<br /><br />I know - it would take an amazing pool player to get it right!<br /><br />I don't really believe this happenned - simply that it is one of many unlikely scenarios.<br /><br />Did you realize that extremophiles have been found miles beneath earth's crust, in addition to miles beneath oceans?<br /><br />Was the moon formed before earth had life and before Mars could sustain extremophiles?

 

[earthseed]

The process that fomed the moon melted the entire Earth. This is not a good prospect for interplanetary panspermia. Large impacts a few hundred million years later could do the job, but TheBigCat correctly points out that it is much harder to go in that direction. I think this kind of thing is likely enough that if life was found on Mars, I would bet it had a common ancestor with life on Earth.

 

[newtonian]

You all (earthseed, The Big Cat, Chew on this, etc.) - back to the basics of thread theme, the 11/05 Sciam. article.<br /><br />I have found some flaws - very crucial flaws - in statements in the article, to wit:<br /><br />"Developments over the past decade, however, have given new credibility to the idea that Earth's biosphere could have arisen from an extraterrestrial seed. <br />Planetary scientists have learned that early in its history our solar system could have included many worlds with liquid water, the essential ingredient for life as we know it." - Scientific American, 11/05, article entitled "Did Life come from another world," by David Warmflash and Benjamin Weiss.<br /><br />So far, so good - perhaps not science fiction, then again perhaps it is!<br /><br />A key is the emphasis in this article on water. While it is true that water is essential for the survival of life, it is not true that water is conducive to the various chemical pathways necessary for the origin of life.<br /><br />Yet Sciam, like many sources that doubt intelligent design, leaves the impression that water is conducive to chemical pathways to life.<br /><br />In many chemical pathways, water destroys the steps necessary for the origin of life, yet Sciam states:<br /><br />"It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that life existed on Mars long ago and perhaps continues there. Life may have also evolved on Europa, Jupiter's fourth-largest moon, which appears to possess liquid water under its icy surface."<br /><br />Actually, it is unreasonable, for reasons involving basic chemistry.<br /><br />Again, the truth involves examining the details, and crucial details are left out of publications and textbooks that support chemical evolution rather than intelligent design.<br /><br />For starters, here is one crucial detail of chemistry:<br /><br />Water reacts with HCN and derivatives that are on chemical pathways towards life.<br /><br />This is why amino acids are not the only product of HCN reactions on chemical

 

[thebigcat]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The velocity of the incoming billiard ball is thensfered to the outgoing billiard ball.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sadly, this is an erronious statement. In a collision the <b>momentum</b> of one object is transfered to the other, or more precisely the combined momenta are shared for a planck interval before the resolution of the impact. However, as the 5 little steel balls on strings illustrate, this transfer of momentum cannot result in an increase in velocity from the first object to the second.<br /><br />With the impact of a small object into a vastly larger one almost all of the momentum is absorbed by the larger object, with any ejected material traveling at a velocity that is only fractionally that if the impacting object.<br /><br />As for your little gravitation slingshot illustration, were it not for hard data from probes sent to Mars nobody would have believed that a tiny little asteroid found in Antarctica had come from Mars, and it would likely have been regarded as having come from the Devon Crater impact or some such, after all, the chances of debris from an impact on Mars actually reaching Earth are very slim, and yet you are asking me to accept that ejecta from an impact on the Earth traveled on a ballistic course until it recieved a gravety slingshot boost from first Venus and then Earth before landing on Mars and somehow traveling backwards in time. I'm not buying it.<br /><br />An excelent suggestion, sir, with only two small drawbacks: One, we have no jet-powered rocket packs, and two, there are no jet-powered rocket packs outside of the fictional serial "Robbie Rocket Pants" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

The Big Cat - Thank you for correcting my common English post by referring to the more correct terms used in physics.<br /><br />However, you missed my point - the billiard ball illustration is correct.<br /><br />You should focus on the direction from which the meteorite came and the amount of energy and resulting trajectory of ejecta..<br /><br />Feel free to post the correct formulas in physics that apply, btw. - as my time is really limited right now.<br /><br />Consider that if the incoming (to earth) meteorite (comet, etc.) would have headed roughly towards Mars if it had missed Earth, then the outgoing (from earth to Mars) meteorites would have also headed in directions roughly towards Mars..<br /><br />Well, not exactly - of course - that’s why I used the Billiard ball illustration.<br /><br />The key is how much energy was transferred to the life carrying rocks - and your point about large vs. small (mass, etc.) is valid.<br /><br />On the latter point, you missed the ball!<br /><br />The incoming meteorite would have been larger than the outgoing rocks and therefore the speed of said transpermia rocks could have easily been great enough to bring life from earth to Mars. [Assuming, of course, that the incoming (to earth) meteorite (comet, etc.) had a speed many times that necessary to reach Mars from the direction of the vicinity of earth had it missed earth.]<br /><br />Remember trajectory and feel free to post the highest possible speed of ejecta from earth in an impact compared with the actual speed necessary to reach Mars - since you want to be more specifically accurate - why not post the actual formulas, limits, math?<br /><br />Remember, to get a handle on the math, you need to post the actual speeds of incoming meteorites and comets on both the lower and higher end [actual observations] and compare this speed with the speed necessary to overcome the sun's gravity to reach Mars from the vicinity of earth.<br /><br />Keep the critique coming - it helps me to refine my ide

 

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - I had time to do a little research - speed of meteorites from the asteroid belt can be 20 km per second or as high as 70 km per second.<br /><br />I assume comets can be much faster.<br /><br />Feel free to comment on the Sciam article as I did above - since it is what inspired the start of this thread.

 

[kmarinas86]

Abiogenesis will happen someday in scientific laboratories. For highly advanced civilizations, if and where they exist, life can be created on other planets at a rate tens of thousands of times faster than evolution from a common ancestor (specific and unique for each planet).<br /><br />If evolution from a common ancestor (specific and unique for each planet) is possible, it will inevitably be made obsolete (or already has been). Interplanetary creation by evolved civilizations is much more efficient than evolution from a common ancestor (specific and unique for each planet). Also, a created civilization will be more likely to survive than one that formed the old fashioned way. Everything would be set up as necessary to keep up the survival of intelligent life in the immediate universe.<br /><br />Such intelligent life may have to follow natural law such that they are forced to make up "evidence" for a common ancestor (specific to that planet) underneath the primitive society which they are creating so that a balanced and proper psychological and scientific development over time will lead that primitive society to become a peaceful neighbor to other civilizations. The evidence for evolution must be there to increase humanism and seperate science from by then religions which have been changed far from their original message. This "evidence" will also prevent a soon to be advanced civilization (such as ours) from depending on their "creators" to solve problems such as Hurrican Katrina and the tsunami. Also, the religions would have to be given earlier at the beginning so that we don't end up with a Star Wars / Star Trek type of society with violence about between different planetary civilizations. This implies that a created primitive society will need to have proper balance of both hubris and submission to nature. Near the end of the development of such a primitive society to a level of worldwide interdependent civilization, more hubris is necessary, but not to

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Wrong again!<br /><br />I do not have any connection with the ID movement nor do I share their agenda to have ID, whatever version, taught in schools.<br /><br />Try to remember these three things about my position - it will save much time and wasted rhetoric:<br /><br />1. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses - for our beliefs, see:<br /><br />www.watchtower.org<br /><br />We have zero involvement in politics.<br /><br />2. I and those of my faith believe in intelligent design but are totally independent from any movements with agendas. We are not part of the ID movement.<br /><br />3. I and those of my faith believe in creation, but we are not creationists in the normal definition of that word.<br /><br />We do not share belief in doctrines taught by creationists - for example, we believe the creative days in Genesis were at least 7,000 years long or longer each.<br /><br />That being said, my personal goal (agenda is the wrong word) is to seek truth by proof - see my signature.<br /><br />You continue your pattern of ignoring the evidence I post and instead post misleading and inaccurate rhetoric.<br /><br />Why not address the actual facts of chemistry which I posted, for example:<br /><br />What happens to chemical pathways starting with HCN (hydrogen cyanide) and then to various second steps on pathways to peptide synthesis - and also polypeptide synthesis?<br /><br />Remember, life as we know it is not possible without polypeptides.<br /><br />Now lets see if in your next post you actually address the evidence or simply post more rhetoric.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Excellent point - that life from beyond earth need not be limited to simple forms on a lifecloud (see Hoyle's book of that name) or comets or meteorites, etc. <br /><br />Drake's equation is also involved, specifically as applied to intelligent life beyond earth.<br /><br />Of course, such intelligent life could greatly increase the speed and probability of the synthesis of life, as in terraforming, on Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, etc.<br /><br />That would be a topic more for SETI, of course - but panspermia and SETI are indeed relevant to each other.<br /><br />Excellent point!<br /><br />As for the rest of your post, that might be better pursued on a SETI thread.<br /><br />Is there a thread there you wish to pursue this on? <br /><br />I don't usually post on SETI, but I can.

 

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - Getting back to thead theme and my speculation that life may have arrived at Mars from earth via an impact, perhaps the one (or two - depending on the model) that caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs (if said model is correct).<br /><br />Your point about momentum, which I am simply referring to as the resulting speed, is very important.<br /><br />Here is some information from Hoyle's book on this (I hope to include information from Scientific American later):<br /><br />"It is interesting to consider the conditions under which living cells could make the journey, not merely from star to star, but from one galaxy to another. The speeds with which particles of appropriate sizes in the tails of comets are expelled from the solar system are generally about 100 km per second, but higher speeds are certainly attainable… In sufficiently exceptional cases, speeds generated by radiation pressure of 1000 km per second might well arise,… “ - “Evolution from Space,” 1981, by astronomer Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, page 58.<br /><br />See the book for the details in the ellipsis and context. I doubt Hoyle’s specific model of panspermia more than I doubt some form of panspermia having occurred.<br /><br />The quote was merely to determine some estimates for speed.<br /><br />100 km per second seems more likely for transpermia ejecta from an impact on earth to a landing on Mars.<br /><br />Is that sufficient speed to overcome the sun’s gravity and reach Mars?<br /><br />Note Hoyle is talking about dust not meteorites.<br /><br />Dust from an earth impact is indeed another method of transpermia.<br /><br />How tenable is Hoyle’s model of dust riding on radiation pressure such as the solar wind from Earth to Mars? <br /><br />To be continued (watching tropical storm Gamma, btw).

 

[newtonian]

Chew_on_this & TheBigCat - Back to the Scientific American article you linked to.<br /><br />Note that Sciam also notes reverse transpermia from Earth to Mars was possible, if I understand this quote correctly:<br /><br />"Moreover, the expanses of interplanetary space are not the forbidding barrier they once seemed. Over the past 20 years scientists have determined that more than 30 meteorites found on Earth originally came from the Martian crust, based on the composition of gases trapped within some of the rocks. Meanwhile biologists have discovered organisms durable enough to survive at least a short journey inside such meteorites. Although no one is suggesting that these particular organisms actually made the trip, they serve as a proof of principle. It is not implausible that life could have arisen on Mars and then come to Earth, or the reverse." - "Scientific American," 11/05.<br /><br />Note that phrase "or the reverse!"

 

[newtonian]

earthseed - you posted concerning panspermia, transpermia and reverse transpermia:<br /><br />"I think this kind of thiing is likely enough that if life was found on Mars, I would bet it had a common ancestor with life on earth."<br /><br />How about: a common designer?<br /><br />Similarity in design would also argue for a common designer - much like similar car parts in different species (makes) of cars argue for a common designer(s).<br /><br />Plus the possible use of similar starting ingredients involving panspermia or transpermia either from or to earth in either model [i.e. chemical evolution vs. creation by a common designer (God [who is extraterrestrial] or intelligent extraterrestrials [e.g. angels].<br /><br />Concerning comets as one possible vehicle for panspermia:<br /><br />1. Type I tail of gas primarily which shine by flourescense due to ionization and excitation by UV irradiation, and point more directly away from the sun than type II tails. <br /><br />The more important point for transpermia, especially reverse transpermia from earth to Mars, is the cause of motion in Type I tails, namely:<br /><br />The solar wind!<br /><br />The solar wind, of course, overcomes solar gravity thoroughly and sweeps away cometary atmospheres to become part of the type I tail.<br /><br />Logically, the solar wind could also carry ejecta from earth's atmosphere, including some ingredients from meteorite or cometary impacts on earth, from earth to Mars and beyond.<br /><br />The method of transport would involve electric charge and therefore would tend to leave earth where earth's magnetic field would allow it.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, earth continuously ejects some atoms and molecules in this way. I do not know where these particles or this gas ends up going normally, btw.<br /><br />I believe the location is above earth's magnetic poles.<br /><br />2. Type II tails. These curve more behind comets. These are mostly dust rather than gas, specifically: "micrometer-sized dust par

 

[earthseed]

About a designer: All of our experience shows that everything we know about in the universe is governed by laws. I will not contest (or necessarily support) that the laws were put in place by a "designer", but I will contest any designer that messes with the laws after they were put in place. That includes any special creation of life. The physical universe preceeded life.<br /><br />Your example of the cars suggests the concept of convergent evolution. Fish and marine mammals look much the same even though they are evolutionarily quite separate. That is because they both must survive under the laws that govern an aquatic existance. Although there may seem to be an infinite number of ways to arrange life forms, only a very few actually work in real environments. Fish and aquatic mammals converged on the same solution.<br /><br />All life we know of are really variants of a single life form, arising from a common ancestor. How many other different types of life forms are possible? We do not know. There may be very few, so even if life arises independently it may still take a cellular form based on some genetic control system. We just do not know.<br /><br />Your stuff about comets lost me. Solar wind is not going to transport viable organisms.

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">How about: a common designer?</font><br /><br />Foul! You have posited the existence of a "designer" prior to life existing. You suggest a supernatural event (with <font color="yellow">God... [[and]] angels</font>, which an assertion which is not falsifiable. That is, there is no way anyone could ever prove that there is no God.<br /><br />Please limit your discussion to natural processes only.<br /><br />For example, suppose life rose on Eden, leading to an advanced, intelligent civilaization, on Eden. These beings might happen to invent artificial space seeds, releasing them to seed other planets. There's nothing supernatural, although it is hight unlikely.

 

[newtonian]

earthseed - First, as you probably realize, I believe the common designer is God (more complicated than that though). <br /><br /> God does not disobey the laws he created. The special creation of life was in harmony with the laws He created.<br /><br /> The physical universe preceeded all matter based life in this universe - we agree there.<br /><br /> I also agree with this statement you posted:<br /><br />"How many other different types of life forms are possible? We do not know."<br /><br /> Especially since we do not know how many universes were created, with likely different properties and perhaps even different laws, as theoretical physicists have also noted.<br /><br /> The Bible, which I believe is accurate, indicates there are energy based life forms (Hebrew for spirit, ruahh, and Greek for spirit, pneuma, both mean 'invisible active force' or 'invisible energy.') including God. <br /><br />Energy preceded matter in our universe, and it is scientifically consistent that the designer of our universe, who fine tuned the laws and properties of our universe to allow for life, is an energy-based life form, in short:<br /><br />(John 4:24) 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth. . .<br /><br />As an example of other intelligent life forms which existed before earth was created:<br /><br />(Job 38:4) Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding.<br /><br />(Job 38:7) When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?<br /><br />Those extraterrestrial sons of God applauded the creation of the earth - and astronauts and ecologists agree this earth is beautiful.<br /><br />So, yes, I agree we do not know how many different possible life forms exist, nor do we know exactly how they were created.<br /><br />And also we do agree these life forms were created in harmony with the laws that were created.<br /><br />Panspermia considers th

 

[newtonian]

igorsboss - Actually, many truths are not falsifiable - that is no foul. In effect, you cannot disprove any truth. <br /><br />However, the Bible makes many statements which are falsifiable, and it has stood the test of time.<br /><br />The question of whether our universe, and life, had a designer can be tested scientifically in many ways.<br /><br />The simple illustration of arrowheads "proving" intelligent design is one example - i.e. there is a certain degree of complexity which argues for intelligent design.<br /><br />And there is much more evidence for God than the relatively simple arrowhead in archaeologist's bag of proofs.<br /><br />Your posts are good examples of this type of proof. Who in their right mind would believe your posts were created without intelligent design?<br /><br />For another example, would you accept a house as proof of intelligent design?<br /><br />(Hebrews 3:4) 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.<br /><br />Now, to argue methane (CH4) is evidence for life on Mars is a very weak argument as there are many other natural causes not involving life. <br /><br />However, informational molecules are quite another matter.<br /><br />If we do find more complex molecules, we would naturally consider how complex and use that as a guide to the probability that life was involved in their creation.<br /><br />And, on thread theme, how likely those molecules originated their or were transported by some panspermia (or transpermia) model - which still leaves the question of how they were created, btw.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...which still leaves the question of how they were created..."</font><br /><br />Newtonian, I appreciate your objective use of the Bible in relation to scientific questions. You are more open minded than is typical for the usual Bible adherent. However, bringing intelligent design into any scientific discussion is not particularly helpful.<br /><br />Being an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist, I'm willing to accept the existence of some entity which we might consider godlike from our limited awareness of the ultimate reality. But the existence of such an entity begs the question of how such an entity itself came into existence.<br /><br />Typically, "God did it" has been an excuse to limit our intellectual curiosity and exploration. I don't believe that is your purpose as you have stated your interest in continued questioning and examination of the natural world. But how can you then explain away such things as the emergence of life by saying "God did it?" I know you still wish to understand <b><i>how</i></b> "God did it," but why stop there? Why not dig deeper into both the psychological and sociological reasons for the existence of God in the first place and, with your scientist hat on, contemplate how such a being itself could come into existence?<br /><br />Intelligent design, when used in connection with such things as arrowheads and houses, indeed points to a creator. But what about that creator? Do we end our scientific investigation by saying a human created it? No, we go to the next step and use science to learn something of the nature of that creator. I would argue that, in the case of your God, this is impossible. Therefore it is out of the realm of science and has no place in a science discussion.<br /><br />I'm sure you disagree <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[newtonian]

swampcat - Thank you for the compliment - I do try to be open minded - and in cases where I disagree I try to understand why others believe differently.<br /><br />I do disagree on some points, notably:<br /><br />1. You posted: "bringing intelligent design into any scientific discussion is not particularly helpful."<br /><br />For scientific progress, making any beginning assumption and ruling out a different model is counter-productive.<br /><br />That goes both ways. Assuming no intellignet design also causes problems.<br /><br />A recent example was the assumption of random evolution causing many DNA sequences, hence the assumption of "junk DNA."<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you accept Psalms 139:16 as referring in part to DNA (also epigenetic coding such as methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin) as God's book, then you would look for purpose for DNA sequences rather than assuming "junk."<br /><br />The same problem occurred further in the past with the assumption that certain organs were vestigial and had no purpose.<br /><br />My point is that many scientists have gone too far the other way in attributing so much to blind chance.<br /><br />It colors their judgment.<br /><br />Think of how much faster ancient science would have progressed if they listened to simple statements in the Bible like 'the earth is hung upon nothing" (Job 26:7) and the 'round earth' (Isaiah 40:22) whose terminator is a circle (Job 26:10), or the heavens being stretched out like a fine gauze (Isaiah 40:22), etc.<br /><br />Likewise with panspermia models, if any of them are accurate.<br /><br />Assuming all things are proceeding according to intelligent or informational input is indeed wrong - just as wrong as assuming nothing proceeds according to intelligent or informational input.<br /><br />A good scientist will keep an open mind to both types of models and research objectively to see which is more likely to apply to whatever is being studied.<br /><br />Another good examnple of this is m

 

[nexium]

The matter that escapes Earth's upper atmosphere 24/7 is almost entirely single atoms of hydrogen and helium. The heavier atoms and molecules do not reach escape velosity as a result of short wavelength photons or ions from our sun. Some very heavy ions