"FRiend" is the most sincere term you can use, here on Free Republic.
Every other term, "Pal", "Buddy", "Kemo Sabe", "Amigo", contains at least a small element of sarcasm & humor.
They are usually intended to be short for something along the lines of: "look, we're on the same side here, we're allies, and I want to be your FRiend, but you're not acting all that FRiendly, so listen more carefully to what I'm saying here".
Posters who respond with sincere friendship should be addressed as "FRiend", those not quite as Friendly as they should be, call "pal" or "buddy".
Hostile & insulting posters should be called... well, try to be nice, sometimes that works!
Texas Songwriter: "But as you know, all of this is speculation.
You may call it hypothesis if it makes you feel better."
Scientifically, as of today, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis, and so it will remain until or unless more evidence is found of it.
If it makes you feel better to call it "fiction" or "figment of imagination", that's fine, but scientifically it could eventually be confirmed, and so qualifies as "hypothesis".
Texas Songwriter: "If bacteria were to be carried on dust survival ability is impossible because there would not be enough of a shield from radiation."
I've read reports, over the years, of bacteria surviving in outer space on human space-craft.
I can't say any specifics, or for how long, but the suggestion is out there that life can be very hardy indeed.
Texas Songwriter: "If a 10 pound rock did escape our solar system it is estimated that at a speed of 100,000 miles per hour it would travel about 16 light years in a million solar years, a length of time which not allow bacteriological survivability..."
Of course, any argument that panspermia is unlikely is doubtless correct.
But the question is whether it's actually impossible, and that we don't know, yet.
Texas Songwriter: "astrobiologists--->proved exchange of copious quantities of organic material the shortest time estimated to transfer this material is on the order of millions of years."
Earth's geological evidence shows signs of early "life" within the first few hundred million years -- around 3.9 billion years ago.
Did it come from outer space, did it develop on Earth, or some combination -- nobody knows for sure, yet.
Texas Songwriter: "If you can refer me to coming close to life, (not organic molecules, not nucleic acids, not lipophosphates, but LIFE) I will change my mind."
The earliest "life" on earth would doubtless not satisfy your own personal definition of what is, or is not, "LIFE".
But if it did three basic things, we could call it not just "complex chemistry", but also "pre-life becoming life".
Those three things are the following:
Whether scientists can duplicate a simple "pre-life" in the lab is yet to be seen.
Texas Songwriter: "Speculation runs rampant, but science is in short supply on this subject."
Sure, so far...
Texas Songwriter: "Haeckel used deceit to inculcate millions of students into the nonsense that ontology recapitulates phylogeny."
You people keep claiming fraud & deceit, but I've only ever seen evidence that Haeckel was honestly mistaken, and even then was onto something: that fetuses of related species look much like each other, while those of more distantly related species still look amazingly similar.
In this particular example human "gill slits" do in fact look like those in fish, and in fish they do, in fact, become gills.
So, for you people to keep hollering "fraud" and "deceit" seems to me, well, just a tad dishonest, pal.
Texas Songwriter: "Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation.
Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point..."
But there's no confusion here.
Evolution is an often confirmed scientific theory, based on the assumptions such as methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Obviously, it's no more valid than its assumptions, but it's the result you get, when you look at the world naturally.
And since the Bible says nothing specific about how God created the Universe, evolution can easily be seen as one of His tools of creation.
Texas Songwriter: "To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one must know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible.
This is to therefore know that God does not exist..."
Now I'm out of time, for now, must run after this...
So, here is your fundamental, core root deep problem: science is not all-about "truth", science can't define "truth", indeed science explicitly excludes all forms of "higher truth" that come from the religious/spiritual/philosophical realm.
Science is only about "what works" and evolution theory, regardless of its higher "truth", or lack of, works in predicting and explaining what the geological & biological data tells us.
So, if somehow tomorrow, some genuine scientist confirms an alternate theory, falsifying evolution, then my response will be: that's fine, it's always interesting to learn how God might have worked to create us.
But it would change nothing of my religious beliefs, which are totally independent of any scientific theory.
Now time is gone, must run! Thanks FRiend!
On Panspermia......I agree with you...it is nonsense. No more comment. On your devotion to the idea of panspermia.....you say...it could be scientifically confirmed......That is your statement of faith I referenced in a previous post to you. Nothing more needs be said.
If you would provide me with scientific documents proving bacteria inhabit outer space I would like to read them.
Your assertion that panspermia is unlikely by not impossible is philosophical assumption you make. I will not go there with you. It remains nonsense, like the moon is made of green cheese. I suppose there is such a theory, but it remains inane and without one centilla of evidence.
Early life.....3.9 billion years ago?......Cambrium 600 million years ago. Precambrium blue green algae found but never dated to nearly 4 billion years, has it. If it has please give me reference. Are you talking about Alexandr Oparin's theory of coacervates? Prelife.....hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen....they are all necessary for life.....but Prelife.....please give me a scientific reference for defining life as phospholipid membrane, a method of gathering energy, and reproduction which would constitute life. Now on to Haeckel......
You people. You people. OK. We people keep alleging fraud and deceit by Haeckel regarding ontology recapitulating phylogeny. Now, I am not an expert. I have had a few embryology courses but I read after experts and so I will quote Those People for you. Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity. Darwin was no embryologist, but he was an adherent of Haeckel's views on this subject. Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings. As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions. Before the publication of 'Origin' Europe's most famous embryologist was Karl Ernst von Baer. Von Baer was the first to refute Haeckel's 'Preformationism' and the 'Law of Parallelism". These ideas were propounded not only by Haeckel, but by two other famous embryologists of the day, Johan Friedrich Meckel (of Meckel's diverticulum fame) and Etienne Serres. although at the time they were referred to as 'laws' they were simply summaries of empirical observations of that time, and they did not fit or comport with observations and had to be abandoned. According to Scientific historian of the time, Timothy Lenoir, von Baer feared that the Darwinists had "already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos. Scientific historian, Fritz Muller, who Darwin sited, "encouraged the confusion, but it was Mullers student, Ernst Haeckel, who 'dramatized the obfuscation' and became its most ardent promoter." Both Adam Sedwick and Frank Lillie acknowledged that recapitulation was a deduction, not an observation and remains so until today. This refutation of Haeckel was in 1909 (Those People). From the beginning Haeckel's biogenetic "law" was simply an deduction of inference, NOT OBSERVATION. By the 1920's the 'law of phyologeny was falling out of favor among embryologists who knew, but the educates kept the lie in school books for indoctrination reasons into Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould said "the biogenetic las fell only when it became unfashionable." Historian of Science, Nicholas Rasmussen agreed with Gould, putting it this way, "All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the FIRST Days of the laws acceptance."
In 1922 Walter Garstang criticized Haeckel's biogenetic law as "demonstrably unsound" because ontogentic stages afford not the slightest evidence of the specially adult features of the ancestry."
in 1940 -1958 British embryologist Gavin de Beer likewise, in his three volume book criticized Haeckel's recapitulation biogenetic law, saying that Haeckel's theory of recapitulation had "thwarted and delayed embryological research".
Haeckel's drawings were fabricated. Jane Oppenheimer said, "Haeckel's hand as an artist altered what he saw with what should have been the eye of a more accurate beholder". Wilhelm His accused Haeckel of SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION. In 1995 Michael Richardson noted that" the embryos drawn were not consistent with other data on the development of those species." He further said, the drawings show,"a clear misrepresentation of the truth".
Stephen Jay Gould, in March 2000 issue of said of Haeckel, that he exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions."
I will stop here......You get the picture....I could give you another 25 such quotes, by not Us People but by Those People-experts in the field of embryology. You have their quotes, not my quotes now, my Friend. Now you must make a determination about the validity of the recapitulation law. Are we a "tad dishonest"? Is that a fair indictment of people who have actually reviewed the literature by someone who clearly has never investigated it? I think not, my Friend.
It seems to fit what Richard Lewontin of Harvard University said, "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are "against common sense" is the "key to understanding" of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science 'in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs"," in spite of its failure" to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment to materialism."
I will stop here. If you really want to go into truth, naturalism, and presuppositionalism I will do so. It is a long ride to discuss it seriously. I will, if you are sure you want to go there.
I take note of you pointing out my core, deep rooted, fundamental problem but I am yet to get any substantive information from you yet. Here I reference you referring me to experts. Your opinion is measured in the balance and I see no use in regarding it about my deep, core rooted, fundamental problems. I will continue to deal in scientific fact and truth when speaking with you. I suspect all you want from me is reference to the facts. That is common ground we can discuss these issues upon. For this we must engage logic, reason, and rational thought. That seems only fair.
On Panspermia......I agree with you...it is nonsense. No more comment. On your devotion to the idea of panspermia.....you say...it could be scientifically confirmed......That is your statement of faith I referenced in a previous post to you. Nothing more needs be said.
If you would provide me with scientific documents proving bacteria inhabit outer space I would like to read them.
Your assertion that panspermia is unlikely by not impossible is philosophical assumption you make. I will not go there with you. It remains nonsense, like the moon is made of green cheese. I suppose there is such a theory, but it remains inane and without one centilla of evidence.
Early life.....3.9 billion years ago?......Cambrium 600 million years ago. Precambrium blue green algae found but never dated to nearly 4 billion years, has it. If it has please give me reference. Are you talking about Alexandr Oparin's theory of coacervates? Prelife.....hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen....they are all necessary for life.....but Prelife.....please give me a scientific reference for defining life as phospholipid membrane, a method of gathering energy, and reproduction which would constitute life. Now on to Haeckel......
You people. You people. OK. We people keep alleging fraud and deceit by Haeckel regarding ontology recapitulating phylogeny. Now, I am not an expert. I have had a few embryology courses but I read after experts and so I will quote Those People for you. Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity. Darwin was no embryologist, but he was an adherent of Haeckel's views on this subject. Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings. As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions. Before the publication of 'Origin' Europe's most famous embryologist was Karl Ernst von Baer. Von Baer was the first to refute Haeckel's 'Preformationism' and the 'Law of Parallelism". These ideas were propounded not only by Haeckel, but by two other famous embryologists of the day, Johan Friedrich Meckel (of Meckel's diverticulum fame) and Etienne Serres. although at the time they were referred to as 'laws' they were simply summaries of empirical observations of that time, and they did not fit or comport with observations and had to be abandoned. According to Scientific historian of the time, Timothy Lenoir, von Baer feared that the Darwinists had "already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos. Scientific historian, Fritz Muller, who Darwin sited, "encouraged the confusion, but it was Mullers student, Ernst Haeckel, who 'dramatized the obfuscation' and became its most ardent promoter." Both Adam Sedwick and Frank Lillie acknowledged that recapitulation was a deduction, not an observation and remains so until today. This refutation of Haeckel was in 1909 (Those People). From the beginning Haeckel's biogenetic "law" was simply an deduction of inference, NOT OBSERVATION. By the 1920's the 'law of phyologeny was falling out of favor among embryologists who knew, but the educates kept the lie in school books for indoctrination reasons into Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould said "the biogenetic las fell only when it became unfashionable." Historian of Science, Nicholas Rasmussen agreed with Gould, putting it this way, "All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the FIRST Days of the laws acceptance."
In 1922 Walter Garstang criticized Haeckel's biogenetic law as "demonstrably unsound" because ontogentic stages afford not the slightest evidence of the specially adult features of the ancestry."
in 1940 -1958 British embryologist Gavin de Beer likewise, in his three volume book criticized Haeckel's recapitulation biogenetic law, saying that Haeckel's theory of recapitulation had "thwarted and delayed embryological research".
Haeckel's drawings were fabricated. Jane Oppenheimer said, "Haeckel's hand as an artist altered what he saw with what should have been the eye of a more accurate beholder". Wilhelm His accused Haeckel of SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION. In 1995 Michael Richardson noted that" the embryos drawn were not consistent with other data on the development of those species." He further said, the drawings show,"a clear misrepresentation of the truth".
Stephen Jay Gould, in March 2000 issue of said of Haeckel, that he exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions."
I will stop here......You get the picture....I could give you another 25 such quotes, by not Us People but by Those People-experts in the field of embryology. You have their quotes, not my quotes now, my Friend. Now you must make a determination about the validity of the recapitulation law. Are we a "tad dishonest"? Is that a fair indictment of people who have actually reviewed the literature by someone who clearly has never investigated it? I think not, my Friend.
It seems to fit what Richard Lewontin of Harvard University said, "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are "against common sense" is the "key to understanding" of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science 'in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs"," in spite of its failure" to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment to materialism."
I will stop here. If you really want to go into truth, naturalism, and presuppositionalism I will do so. It is a long ride to discuss it seriously. I will, if you are sure you want to go there.
I take note of you pointing out my core, deep rooted, fundamental problem but I am yet to get any substantive information from you yet. Here I reference you referring me to experts. Your opinion is measured in the balance and I see no use in regarding it about my deep, core rooted, fundamental problems. I will continue to deal in scientific fact and truth when speaking with you. I suspect all you want from me is reference to the facts. That is common ground we can discuss these issues upon. For this we must engage logic, reason, and rational thought. That seems only fair.