|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Most college professors are Democrats, or at least left-leaning. Must be something about that whole upper end of the academic spectrum thing...
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, Earthguy makes a great point that I can't seem to get across to my high school students enough: it's not a theory unless it is supported by a vast amount of evidence. People tend to throw that word around a bit too much. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to call panspermia anything but a hypothesis at this point... at least not until we find a meteorite or space-travelling asteroid with living cells on it.
-Chance
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Universe contains an estimated 10 to the 20th power(100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars similar to our sun. We really have no idea how many of these stars have planets, but it is increasingly apparent that many do. In 1996 astronomers detected several planets orbiting distant stars. At least 10% of stars are thought by scientists to have some type of planetary system. If only one in 10,000 of these planets is the right size and distance from that star to duplicate the conditions in which life originated on earth, the “life experiment” will have repeated itself 10 to the 15th power (that’s a million billion times for you math-heads). Consequently, the odds that we are alone is slim to none.
Great, now I'll be talking American Idol results next.....grrrrrrrrrr.
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh I have no doubt whatsoever that other life exists in the universe. In fact, I think it's a bit narrow minded to think that only planets similar to ours could support life. Life here just happened to form from carbon, both because carbon is so plentiful on the planet and because it forms four stable bonds and is therefore very organically useful. Who's to say though that silicon based life may have developed somewhere, or tin based life, etc etc etc, that could have developed in conditions vastly inhospitable to carbon-basers like us? Truth be told, I personally believe the odds against other life existing somewhere in the universe are (pardon the pun) astronomically small.
All that being said, it still doesn't lend much to the idea of panspermia. At least not anywhere near enough to call it a theory. Is it possible for living or dormant cells to travel through the vacuum of space and land on a planet or moon somewhere intact? Very likely, yes. There are archaebacteria here on Earth that live in conditions no other life can. But again, until we find a meteorite or collect a sample from an asteroid flying through space that contains living cells, the idea of panspermia remainds a hypothesis.
-Chance
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by snakeguy101 on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
okay, last i heard, the recent theory is that the entire universe was once a basic atom that was made up of 4 forces: gravity, electromagnetivity, and weak and strong atomic forces. at one point in time, gravity broke off of this atom which was infinitely small and infinitely dense causing somewhat of an explosion or expansion (no one is sure how fast it happened). this atom expanded into the elements and eventually planets formed from the gravitational pull of each atom that attracted other atoms to it and increased in mass until planets were formed. the universe has been proven to be expanding today so it is "possible." If this theory is correct then i suspect that there would have been another force that "just is" in that basic atom. I think that life would have originated there. It is difficult to try to explain this theory in words but if you look for it on the history channel you will get a much better explanation.
~Chris~
www.snakeguy101.com
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chance, You are absolutely correct the word THEORY is way overused. Theories are supported by LAWS and have a tremendous amount of evidence to prove them. People say "Evolution is just a theory". Evolution is a theory supported by laws and a tremendous amount of proof. The general public and even some people who should know better need to refresh their knowledge/information.
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by snakeguy101 on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
here is a link that explains stuff better for those of you interested:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm
|
| |
|
RE: interesting theory or just baloney??
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on September 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm hoping I'm not the only one with this sentiment in mind, but if we could, let's keep this discussion in the realm of true science. Delving into ideas about intelligent design and special creation simply opens the door for all kinds of crazy supernatural explanations that neither require nor could supply a single drop of evidence with which to back them up.
-Chance
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
