Hi Sam, > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:13:04 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote:
>> Gee, did I forget to mention the panspermia hypothesis in my earlier post? >> Thanks for mentioning it. > That just removes the problem from this world to a remote "other > world" from the known to the unknown. It could be possible. Still, > who or what did the directing? And how and where did life originate? Quite correct, Sam. Many of my evolutionist friends are very devout, and they have a strong emotional objection to panspermia, because they think that this theory just 'puts off' answering the inevitable question of where the first life form came from. They think that we should just bite the bullet, try not to think about the laws of chemistry, and have faith that life evolved here on earth. Panspermia might be emotionally unsatisfying; just the same, it might be *true*. There might just be some planet somewhere who's chemical environment is so different from ours that reactions take place that we haven't even imagined--and where chemical evolution really is possible. It seems to me that panspermists (is that a word?) are trying to reconcile chemistry and evolution in the only honest way possible. > The entire known universe could be just the inside of a raisin in > a football stadium sized vat of rice pudding. And the rotation of the > vat causes the dark force of empty space. Or maybe not. Yeah, but that isn't a scientific idea, is it. The moon could be made of Swiss cheese, but few of us think that that's a very progressive hypothesis. The goal of science is to explain things with ideas that cross-link in such a way that they are all tied together into one body of knowledge--a worthy goal. Ray Andrews, Vancouver, Canada -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
