Is panspermia even more mainstream that I thought? The new (potential) traces of early life were used in none other than space.com to tout the possibility of panspermia: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lava_life_040422.html Here's the quote: "Nobody knows how life began. Scientists aren't even sure if it started on Earth first or was transported here by Mars rocks or in the bellies of comets. They do know that Earth was initially inhospitable and probably dry as a bone when it formed about 4.5 billion years ago." Anybody else seen panspermia rising to the forefront as an explanation for the origin of life?
i think the idea is excellent. imo, it should be respected more than it seems to be. i'm not saying that's what happened, but it's definitely near the top of my list of good possibilities. certainly a better explanation than the bible!
And you're probably going to find this hard to believe, but I actually don't want to debate the latter (even tho of course I respectfully disagree). I was asking because many ETers are very well read and I'm genuinely curious if they've run across anything relating to this. My sense - and it's largely from (a widespread) anecdotal base - is that panspermia is now mainstream in the scientific community...
Oh yeah a "perfect omnipotent entity" is definitely a reasonable explanation for the origin of life. It must be true why on Earth would we manufacture something like this... LOL