|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and consuming billions of dollars. It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible hypotheses, in any field. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and consuming billions of dollars. It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible hypotheses, in any field. In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:12:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and consuming billions of dollars. It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible hypotheses, in any field. In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite. Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier (meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was transported between stars, just organic material. Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of investigation? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote:
Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto. Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 16:44:47 UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto. Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm -- Regards, Martin Brown I thought the present consensus was that Rich originated in a warm, muddy, volcanic puddle on a Pangaean shoreline somewhere. Probably during an embarrassing bombardment of Martian Riches. ;-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 09:32:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:12:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and consuming billions of dollars. It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible hypotheses, in any field. In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite. Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier (meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was transported between stars, just organic material. Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of investigation? So what organic material have they found on them? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:44:47 UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote: Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences? I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto. Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm -- Regards, Martin Brown I saw one new one the other day, might have been on phys.org, but I can't remember. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 09:32:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier (meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was transported between stars, just organic material. Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of investigation? So what organic material have they found on them? On meteorites? Well, nobody has identified an interstellar meteorite, but meteorites and comets formed within our own solar system contain a variety of organics- amines, amides, amino acids, carboxylic acids, sugars, aromatic hydrocarbons, and others. It remains a viable theory that the organics which allowed life on Earth were seeded by material formed elsewhere in the Solar System. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wish: Do not support the Sociopaths in "science" by, WITHOUT COMMENT, re-posting their vicious lies "about life" - Scientists home in on mysterious dark matter | Leonardo Been | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 5th 13 10:43 AM |
I'm SICK of the theory of "panspermia" | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 23 | January 2nd 07 03:30 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |