Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick ,advanced civilisation transported seeds of life in a spacecraft

Scientific theory is based on repeatable observations and tests. If scientific theory was merely just speculation then you could just dream up any idea that has no sound bases to back it up, and claim it's science, which it isn't.

Yeah, like that nut job who came up with relativity. Not one single experiment was performed. He just dreamed it up staring out a window.

reply to post by Crito


I enjoyed your post.

Yes, in my opinion it seems to be a case of Panspermia vs. Directed Panspermia.
Occams Razor would suggest that since extremophiles can exist in the harshest of known conditions that life could have very easily arrived here on an asteroid. And would therefore, be the simplest explanation in this case.

However, it doesn't account for the oral histories of countless pre/neo-historic peoples who spoke of beings coming from the stars to cousel and teach them the ways of civilization.

And here is where our resident "scientists" fail to understand the scope of the question.
And precisely where the "Guy with the Nobel Prize" DID understand the whole problem.

Gosh! Why is it that these threads start ending up in Arguments over such meneal crap.. Some of you are like little kids..

I don't know if Life originated on this planet, on It's Own or Some Advanced Civilisation brought life to this planet.
What I do know is, Life Exists here and we have yet to find it anywhere else. That doesn't mean life doesn't exist anywhere else it just means we haven't found any.
So, Really, at this stage we could say that Life does not Exist anywhere else. We say it probably does because some very intelligent people say the odds are that there is life elsewhere in the universe because the universe is Neverending. What a Waste Of Space if life didn't exist elsewhere.

Now, The problem I have with LIFE on this planet is how it has evolved. How did life get from Unintelligent Life to life that is intelligent enough to discover the Atom, Travel Outer Space, Understand Physics and so on?

How did we advance Technology so fast in the last couple of hundred years?

Think about it. 200-300 hundred years ago there was no Television, No Radio, Disease Control was almost non-existent, no Cars, no Aeroplanes, no Rockets, No Atom Smashers and so on and so on..

You can't tell me that Humans had been on the planet for thousands of years and then all of a sudden Technology explodes at a breakneck Speed without any Intervention from Someone, Somewhere..?

Did our brains suddenly Evolve to Understand Complex Understandings or was it an actual evolving of our Minds?

Some civilisations were advanced, So we are told by Archaeologists but, were they really? They could build and live in cities. They could build boats etc, But is that really a measure of our intelligence?

It's got me stuffed how we get from Living In Caves to Building Nuclear Power Stations..

Originally posted by Crito

Scientific theory is based on repeatable observations and tests. If scientific theory was merely just speculation then you could just dream up any idea that has no sound bases to back it up, and claim it's science, which it isn't.

Yeah, like that nut job who came up with relativity. Not one single experiment was performed. He just dreamed it up staring out a window.

Yes. Clearly.

reply to post by Subz949


False Dichotomy.

If you don't understand how Scientific Theory is speculative, I don't know how to explain it to you any more clearly.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Subz949

 

False Dichotomy.

If you don't understand how Scientific Theory is speculative, I don't know how to explain it to you any more clearly.

Talk about going around in circles......I'll leave you to carry on discussing this 'scientific theory'......

Occam used to cut himself shaving every morning. Meaning some things are inherently complex. We should strive to make them as simple as possible but not more so. Oversimplification is just as bad as convoluted, overly-complex thinking.

Problem with some theories, unlike relativity, is they make no testable predictions that can be used to prove or disprove them. How will we ever know if aliens seeded life on Earth? I guess we'll just have to wait until they land on the White House lawn and inform us that we're all lab rats.

reply to post by Subz949


Look, the word of one man is not going to be proof of anything.
I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise.
But for people to jump in and SCREAM that it is unacceptable because it is speculation is absurd.

You cannot name a single Scientific Theory that is NOT based on speculation.
If Scientific Theory was anything OTHER than speculation, it would be considered Scientific *Law*.

Good day.

reply to post by Crito


Agreed.
In the mean time, I sure do love reading the reports.

This is speculation.

Just like the unproven primordial soup theory.

Scientist still have not come close to creating a protocell this way, or any other way.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Claimed evidence is stillborn? You weren't hating on the speculator?

That is an acknowledgement that the evidence is weak. Criticism is not synonymous with hate.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
As far as your not knowing what a scientific theory is:

And that proves I don't know what a theory is, how? You've copied and pasted a lot with no explanation on how it applies to me. You're parroting words with no thought about what they mean. And you still have not told us how Crick's speculation rises to the level of scientific theory.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
They are never considered "right or wrong" they are "rigorously tentative" meaning they are proposed to be true. They are not absolute.

Could you please point to where I said anything of the sort? You are so desperate to prove me wrong that you are not only rationalizing everything as proof but ascribing things to me that didn't happen.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
How is Crick's speculation any different?

They are making an appeal to authority. The speculation does not carry extra weight because of the letters after Crick's name or the awards he's won.

Originally posted by Damian-007
Gosh! Why is it that these threads start ending up in Arguments over such
Now, The problem I have with LIFE on this planet is how it has evolved. How did life get from Unintelligent Life to life that is intelligent enough to discover the Atom, Travel Outer Space, Understand Physics and so on?

How did we advance Technology so fast in the last couple of hundred years?

Think about it. 200-300 hundred years ago there was no Television, No Radio, Disease Control was almost non-existent, no Cars, no Aeroplanes, no Rockets, No Atom Smashers and so on and so on..

You can't tell me that Humans had been on the planet for thousands of years and then all of a sudden Technology explodes at a breakneck Speed without any Intervention from Someone, Somewhere..?

Did our brains suddenly Evolve to Understand Complex Understandings or was it an actual evolving of our Minds?...

Don't confuse the rise in our knowledge to build and possess technology with a rise in intelligence. The people 300 years ago were just as intelligent as us -- they possessed enough intelligence to understand the technology we have today. Humans did not evolve more intelligence in the past 300 years; Human evolution and the recent explosion of human technology in the are two totally different things.

Humans today are not "smarter" than humans from 300 years ago -- nor are we smarter than humans from 5000 years ago. Our brains may have evolved in imperceptible amount in the past 5000 years, but we are basically exactly the same (with the same intelligence) as the humans from ancient times.

We may have more knowledge, but we have the same intelligence.

You may question why that knowledge has seemingly exploded in the past several hundred years, but it has nothing to do with human evolution. I think the explosion in technology has been going on for more than 300 years -- probably more like 500 years. That coincides with the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the renaissance.

There's your reason for the explosion -- the renaissance. I don't think our technology flourished since then as much as I think that our technology waned during the dark age, which were caused in part by the fall of the Roman Empire. That falling apart of civilization caused human discovery to stagnate. We were moving along pretty good until then.

I think if we humans would not have had the dark ages, then the incredible technological discoveries by the ancient Greeks and Romans would have blossomed into a much greater technological civilization much earlier...

...The ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans were just as smart as us, and could have eventually have created the electronic world in which we live today if civilization did not have its "hiccup" during the dark ages.



[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Actually, the first person I noted making an appeal to authority in this thread was yourself.
Speculation is speculation.
No matter who is making it. If "Crick's" ideas are consistent with what is observed, it is just as valid as anyone else's.

You sir, were the VERY FIRST to jump in saying otherwise.
Appealing to the authority of the consensus of academia.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Speculation!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientific theory is speculation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The word is derived from a Greek word meaning speculation!!!!!!!
Words, words, words. Shakespeare said.
Why do you think he said that?
Because people don't know the meaning of them.

Ever hear of an Etymological Fallacy?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Actually, the first person I noted making an appeal to authority in this thread was yourself.

Do you know what an appeal to authority is?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Appealing to the authority of the consensus of academia.

When did I do this?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Just for you...
I pulled down a book written by a "Jennifer Bothamley" entitled Dictionary of Theories.

Here, in the introduction...

"The first problem when compiling a dictionary of this type is what constitutes a theory. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a theory as:

a) A scheme of system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed.
b) that department of an art or technical subject which consists in the knowledge (or theory of knowledge), statement of the facts on which it depends, or its principles or methods, as distinguished from the practice of it
c) systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system."

So, how do you define theory? and what part of the definition do you use to say that any such theory is anything but speculative in nature?

Cause from the way I see it, they are all speculative in their scope to a degree. Otherwise, they wouldn't be explaining facts and laws. Instead, they would be facts or laws themselves.

Accusing someone of a "fallacy" does not make it so. In fact, you are just furthering your appeal to authority.
Which, ironically, is the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

Speculation is speculation.
No matter who is making it. If "Crick's" ideas are consistent with what is observed, it is just as valid as anyone else's.

I would like to change what you said slightly:

If "Crick's" ideas are not supported by any evidence, then his ideas are no more valid than anyone else's.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Crick's (and others) speculation about direct panspermia. I think the idea is interesting, thought-provoking, and possible (although I don't necessarily believe nor disbelieve this to be true).

However, due to a lack of evidence, this speculation is only speculation. It doesn't really matter that it came from Francis Crick. Without evidence, the fact that Crick made this speculation adds no more credence to the idea that Earth was seeded with life by aliens.

If someone believes that this idea suddenly is more likely to be true just because Francis Crick mentioned the possibility of it being true, then THAT is "Appeal to Authority".


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I don't see how his "idea" is any different than any other panspermia "idea" in lieu of facts to be had. Do you?

I don't see any need for the correction.
His theory is no different than any other theory of its type other than his speculates on the possibility of seeding being directed.

And we could probably also argue on whether or not there IS, in fact, any evidence (albeit anectdotal) to support it.

Furthermore, I haven't seen anyone say "because francis crick said it, it is true".
In fact, anyone saying that it is bunk because it is speculative is making the same appeal because the true reasoning behind it is "It is bunk because academia doesn't agree with it."

[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by JayinAR
Furthermore, I haven't seen anyone say "because francis crick said it, it is true".

Well, they may have not said this directly, but someone back on page 1 alluded to it:

awesome, lends some credence and credibility to sitchin and hancock and temple... excellent. im a believer in the theory so this is good stuff for me

In fact, anyone saying that it is bunk because it is speculative is making the same appeal because the true reasoning behind it is "It is bunk because academia doesn't agree with it."

I don't think anyone said it's "bunk" either. Some people are just trying to temper the enthusiasm over a "Nobel Laureate" saying something that is purely speculative.

I don't find Crick's ideas to be "bunk", but at the same time I don't find the idea about direct panspermia to be any more believable just because Crick said he thought it was possible. Of course it's possible. Crick's statements didn't change anything nor add more credence to the idea.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]