Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
he's saying aliens is the ONLY possible explanation for intelligent design. extreme claims require extreme explanations. that extreme would make sense.
Dawkins says how aliens (if existant) could of seeded life on earth using non-supernatural reasoning. Then argues IF this were true, that DNA might provide clues.
Non-supernatural reasoning was used to describe how ID could happen, in that sense its > than super-natural reasoning.
There are no discovered signatures, scarce, if any signal of intelligent alien life. We already have the ability to manipulate genes and seed life.
Plausable reasoning, no plausable credibility for it or ID.
Another moron who thinks Dawkins believes aliens created us.
One would think that since Dawkins has criticized "intelligent design" on numerous occasions that he DOESN'T ACCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
But hey, I guess religious people have never had a problem with holding contradicting beliefs, like how a "loving" god can stick his own sentient creations in a burning hell for eternity.
Now it all makes sense. Ben Stein exhibits the intellectual dishonesty necessary to be part of the Nixon administration. He has become the spokesperson for the moronically afflicted.Ben Stein is a crook. He invites Dawkins to speculate on what would have led to the apparition of design in biology -- if one where ever found (is hasn't). Then when Dawkins does speculate, Stein exclaims in the audio commentary "So he DOES believe in design!". Dishonest, willfully and misleading. Religion exposed.
Come on. Are you really not capable of understanding the speculative nature of Ben Stein's question? The question was what IF the cell exhibits prof of design. Now, only creationists believe cells are designed, scientists know they are not. But Dawkins speculated on Ben Steins invitation to expand upon what that would mean -- and he suggests that even if the cells where designed, there are other possible designers than God. You just don't understand the question NOR the answer.
Exactly. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a scientist would prefer a naturalistic scientifically possible solution to a supernatural scientifically impossible one. Even to a made-up problem.
OK, not sure if my other posts made it onto here, doesn't look like it, maybe i'm muted. But kkp5200 you need to relearn what Abiogenesis is and also evolution, and also what you said was my definition of a genius is shows you need to relearn reading comprehension. Reread what I said please, it answers all of your questions and replies you gave to it.
Richard Dawkins is a genius, therefore he would never throw away any theories of anything, even god. BUT as most intelligent atheists, which most are very intelligent, would not believe anything with zero proof/evidence. It's not the job of the atheist to prove the non-existance of god, it is the theists job to prove he does. Atheist is just another word for skeptic, because really I highly doubt if a god did appear that an atheist would still be an atheist. Atheist=skeptic of no proof claims
I never said that a genius is someone who blieves in anything, you need to learn reading comprehension again. What I said was "(an intelligent person or genius) would never throw away any theories of anything". I know it must be hard to believe in something to which there is no proof and being corrected in every turn must be frustrating. But someone who believes in fairy tales with no proof or a shred of evidence sounds more like a child to me. ;)
The movie you've taken this from is one giant example of how a biased editor can take reality and cut, copy and paste so it fits his beliefs. This interview is extremely misleading in the fact that Dawkins is asked questions (which are edited out) and only his responses are left, as to make his response seem completely different from his real view. This is quote mining, and it is deceitful, and that is a sin according to your bible.
Dawkins has a response to this on his website, check it out.
We DON'T KNOW if there is a God (And no, there's no actual proof there is, it's all speculation).
Because we know there is life, and are unsure if there is a divine being, it will always be more plausible to think it is more likely to FIND life than a divine being, until proof for that divine being arises.
its just so funny to me, someone says there is no God and he's so sure of himself, so confident that he's right, and then, boom, it's ok to think that there is a really smart alien race that designed life, and they feel its a better explanation of the origin of life.
I understand, but even Dawkins says he's not absolutely sure there is no God. He has claimed it would be foolish for anyone to claim to know anything absolutely. It's just knowing there is intelligent life, and having NO REASON TO BELIEVE in something without any sort of conclusive evidence, he goes with what is more likely, even though he thinks both are near completely implausible.
kkp5200, I ask that you watch this video again. Only this time, pay attention to the context in which Dawkins mentions aliens.
His hypothesis of us coming from aliens is only a possible explanation to why science may show evidence of intelligent design. If things point to intelligent design, than it may be caused by another civilization, but not the classical God that gives us moral rules too follow.
ok, watched it again, this time seeing that aliens are a much better explanation of the origin of life than God...
do any of you realize, including Dawkins that just even sighting another race starting life isn't even answering the question. just saying the question is answered doesn't answer the question
Exactly right, but religion does just that: Says the question is answered... Dawkins doesnt actually believe aliens created the universe, nor is he just trying to dodge the idea of God. He is using aliens to describe what can look like intelligent design of OUR OWN world, but not the creation of the universe as a whole or life itself. Unlike creationists, Dawkins is brave enough to admit he has no idea how the universe came to be.
No, the chance that we came from aliens or a creator has the same amount of believability, both with zero proof or evidence. As the argument of us coming from a rock is absurd, showing you have no grasp of Abiogenesis, or the basic scientific knowledge of a high school student. Not even Evolution has anything to do with inorganic to organic matter transformation, read up before replying please to make a serious argument. And my brain tells me to not believe in fiction, what does ur brain tell u?
by "primordial ooze" I'm going to assume that you have actually done your research on evolution and speciation and abiogenesis, this is probably giving you a big long shot but i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time. this "ooze" has nothing to do with rock, mud, rain, or "whatever sounds most absurd" all it is is organic chemicals, which in fact are different from inorganic chemicals that make up, ie: rocks, mud, rain. So now what is the basis of your claims for god again?
That is what is called an "unknown", the question of what came before the "ooze" as you so bastardly put it. But the thing is, you think you have proof that you actually know this unknown, to which you couldn't possibly know. You input your god-of-the-gaps hypothesis thinking that it is somehow fact, or proof. Just because something is an unknown to science doesn't mean that it can't be found out scientifically without a supernatural, magical sky daddy means.
good, unknown is good, ask questions. Don't believe everything you hear, just use common sense and reason, and make hypothesis, and learn with experiments and observation, with repeated results.... that is what science is all about.
its really remarkable that such a renown person as a world famous atheist can back all of his theories about life with such a pathetic explanation as "designer aliens". it would be better if he said he didn't know,
Well actually if you watch the whole clip, the reason he mentions "designer aliens" is because he was asked IF there was intelligent design, what would have most likely caused it.
Richard Dawkins has made his position known that he doesn't believe Aliens exist. Being an Atheist, he also doesn't think a God exists, and he finds MORE likely (but he disbelieves in both remember) to be Aliens.
3:14 IS Ben Stein asking Dawkins the question to which I mention. Previous to this, he says nobody knows how life started.
At 3:14, Ben Stein asks "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in Genetics or in Evolution?" To answer the question, Dawkins says IF there was Intelligent Design, he finds it more LIKELY to be Aliens than a God, neither of which be believes in. Just as I said previously.
That's because alien creators ARE more probable- we are living examples of that. Dawkins is talking about beings that evolved, just like we did, with the ability to genetically engineer organisms and send life to other planet, just like we do. Given the size of the universe it's entirely possible that there is extraterrestrial life as technologically advanced as we are, if not more so.
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
when dawkins says that intelligent design could be possible what hes saying is this
say we do find another planet that is exactly like earth air waterr etc etc
and then we clone ourselves and dropped a few of them on this planet and just left em there to become what they become then in essence to them
we are god
coltsrule5150 9 months ago
he's saying aliens is the ONLY possible explanation for intelligent design. extreme claims require extreme explanations. that extreme would make sense.
grungeiac 1 year ago
your giving air time to a satan droid.
mickwillie1 1 year ago
Dawkins says how aliens (if existant) could of seeded life on earth using non-supernatural reasoning. Then argues IF this were true, that DNA might provide clues.
Non-supernatural reasoning was used to describe how ID could happen, in that sense its > than super-natural reasoning.
There are no discovered signatures, scarce, if any signal of intelligent alien life. We already have the ability to manipulate genes and seed life.
Plausable reasoning, no plausable credibility for it or ID.
Thomas60 1 year ago
Okay, aliens seeded...
"We already have the ability to manipulate genes and seed life."
example of "seed life" please
kkp5200 1 year ago
Seed "Send currently existant or manipulated lifeforms"
Manipulation is a form of designing.
Creation would be "creating a self-replicating molecule without using currently available organisms or self-replicating molecules"
Thomas60 1 year ago
such as
kkp5200 1 year ago
@kkp5200 whenever you foster a child you seed life. Whenever your milk top is opened, airborne bacteria seed life into your milk.
GM babies are technically designed.
Not sure this answer achieves anything over and above the original post.
Thomas60 1 year ago
I understand, life created life..
I get it.
kkp5200 1 year ago
@kkp5200
just being honest here but please can you think of some more logical arguments than "yeh but why?"... "yeh but why?"...
90ben09 1 year ago
Another moron who thinks Dawkins believes aliens created us.
One would think that since Dawkins has criticized "intelligent design" on numerous occasions that he DOESN'T ACCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
But hey, I guess religious people have never had a problem with holding contradicting beliefs, like how a "loving" god can stick his own sentient creations in a burning hell for eternity.
CodaCola 2 years ago
he does think aliens are more plausible., he just admitted it in the video,
durrrr
kkp5200 2 years ago
@CodaCola
What do you think he meant?
90ben09 1 year ago
@CodaCola
What do you think he meant?
90ben09 1 year ago
stein is an idiot
croggers1 2 years ago
no, the guy with yellow crooked teeth is... :P
he thought long and hard about the alien creators.
kkp5200 2 years ago
Now it all makes sense. Ben Stein exhibits the intellectual dishonesty necessary to be part of the Nixon administration. He has become the spokesperson for the moronically afflicted.Ben Stein is a crook. He invites Dawkins to speculate on what would have led to the apparition of design in biology -- if one where ever found (is hasn't). Then when Dawkins does speculate, Stein exclaims in the audio commentary "So he DOES believe in design!". Dishonest, willfully and misleading. Religion exposed.
dimme67 2 years ago
hehe, religion of the really intellectual, critical thinking atheist..
just make sure that the creators were not of Jewish or Christian theology..
kkp5200 2 years ago
Come on. Are you really not capable of understanding the speculative nature of Ben Stein's question? The question was what IF the cell exhibits prof of design. Now, only creationists believe cells are designed, scientists know they are not. But Dawkins speculated on Ben Steins invitation to expand upon what that would mean -- and he suggests that even if the cells where designed, there are other possible designers than God. You just don't understand the question NOR the answer.
dimme67 2 years ago
its called a hypothetical question.
Richard expounnded twice, We learned he thinks hypothetical aliens are a better choice then a hypothetical Jewish or Christian God
kkp5200 2 years ago
Exactly. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a scientist would prefer a naturalistic scientifically possible solution to a supernatural scientifically impossible one. Even to a made-up problem.
dimme67 2 years ago
OK, not sure if my other posts made it onto here, doesn't look like it, maybe i'm muted. But kkp5200 you need to relearn what Abiogenesis is and also evolution, and also what you said was my definition of a genius is shows you need to relearn reading comprehension. Reread what I said please, it answers all of your questions and replies you gave to it.
Feralus69 2 years ago
deluded
blackpajamas77 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a genius, therefore he would never throw away any theories of anything, even god. BUT as most intelligent atheists, which most are very intelligent, would not believe anything with zero proof/evidence. It's not the job of the atheist to prove the non-existance of god, it is the theists job to prove he does. Atheist is just another word for skeptic, because really I highly doubt if a god did appear that an atheist would still be an atheist. Atheist=skeptic of no proof claims
Feralus69 2 years ago
ok, never heard that term before, a genius is someone that believes in anything..
that sounds more like a child to me.
kkp5200 2 years ago
I never said that a genius is someone who blieves in anything, you need to learn reading comprehension again. What I said was "(an intelligent person or genius) would never throw away any theories of anything". I know it must be hard to believe in something to which there is no proof and being corrected in every turn must be frustrating. But someone who believes in fairy tales with no proof or a shred of evidence sounds more like a child to me. ;)
Feralus69 2 years ago
any theories of anything?
ok thats the same thing as not discounting stupid theories.
and thats some new definition of a genius i guess
kkp5200 2 years ago
The movie you've taken this from is one giant example of how a biased editor can take reality and cut, copy and paste so it fits his beliefs. This interview is extremely misleading in the fact that Dawkins is asked questions (which are edited out) and only his responses are left, as to make his response seem completely different from his real view. This is quote mining, and it is deceitful, and that is a sin according to your bible.
Dawkins has a response to this on his website, check it out.
IanBillings00 2 years ago
so you agree with Dawkins that designer aliens are more plausible?
kkp5200 2 years ago
It's DEFINITELY more plausible.
We KNOW there is life.
We DON'T KNOW if there is a God (And no, there's no actual proof there is, it's all speculation).
Because we know there is life, and are unsure if there is a divine being, it will always be more plausible to think it is more likely to FIND life than a divine being, until proof for that divine being arises.
BrellK 2 years ago
its just so funny to me, someone says there is no God and he's so sure of himself, so confident that he's right, and then, boom, it's ok to think that there is a really smart alien race that designed life, and they feel its a better explanation of the origin of life.
kkp5200 2 years ago
I understand, but even Dawkins says he's not absolutely sure there is no God. He has claimed it would be foolish for anyone to claim to know anything absolutely. It's just knowing there is intelligent life, and having NO REASON TO BELIEVE in something without any sort of conclusive evidence, he goes with what is more likely, even though he thinks both are near completely implausible.
BrellK 2 years ago
kkp5200, I ask that you watch this video again. Only this time, pay attention to the context in which Dawkins mentions aliens.
His hypothesis of us coming from aliens is only a possible explanation to why science may show evidence of intelligent design. If things point to intelligent design, than it may be caused by another civilization, but not the classical God that gives us moral rules too follow.
michaelgorby 2 years ago
ok, watched it again, this time seeing that aliens are a much better explanation of the origin of life than God...
do any of you realize, including Dawkins that just even sighting another race starting life isn't even answering the question. just saying the question is answered doesn't answer the question
kkp5200 2 years ago
Exactly right, but religion does just that: Says the question is answered... Dawkins doesnt actually believe aliens created the universe, nor is he just trying to dodge the idea of God. He is using aliens to describe what can look like intelligent design of OUR OWN world, but not the creation of the universe as a whole or life itself. Unlike creationists, Dawkins is brave enough to admit he has no idea how the universe came to be.
michaelgorby 2 years ago
like anyone can explain that..
how bout "poof" there it is..
kkp5200 2 years ago
the most plausible explanation for the formation of the universe would be a natural explanation not some made up god.
hopokuk 2 years ago
Is there any more proof of god than designer aliens?
Feralus69 2 years ago
I don't know, whats your brain tell you?
you either came from aliens, a rock, or a creator.
perhaps a creator from another dimension, of which science is just learning about 10's maybe 100's of other dimensions..
kkp5200 2 years ago
No, the chance that we came from aliens or a creator has the same amount of believability, both with zero proof or evidence. As the argument of us coming from a rock is absurd, showing you have no grasp of Abiogenesis, or the basic scientific knowledge of a high school student. Not even Evolution has anything to do with inorganic to organic matter transformation, read up before replying please to make a serious argument. And my brain tells me to not believe in fiction, what does ur brain tell u?
Feralus69 2 years ago
what, evolutionists say we came from primordial ooze, ie: rocks, mud, rain, whatever sounds most absurd..
kkp5200 2 years ago
by "primordial ooze" I'm going to assume that you have actually done your research on evolution and speciation and abiogenesis, this is probably giving you a big long shot but i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time. this "ooze" has nothing to do with rock, mud, rain, or "whatever sounds most absurd" all it is is organic chemicals, which in fact are different from inorganic chemicals that make up, ie: rocks, mud, rain. So now what is the basis of your claims for god again?
Feralus69 2 years ago
what came before the "ooze".?
your organic material had a begining didn't it? prior to that it was water and rocks...
kkp5200 2 years ago
That is what is called an "unknown", the question of what came before the "ooze" as you so bastardly put it. But the thing is, you think you have proof that you actually know this unknown, to which you couldn't possibly know. You input your god-of-the-gaps hypothesis thinking that it is somehow fact, or proof. Just because something is an unknown to science doesn't mean that it can't be found out scientifically without a supernatural, magical sky daddy means.
Feralus69 2 years ago
good, unknown is good, ask questions. Don't believe everything you hear, just use common sense and reason, and make hypothesis, and learn with experiments and observation, with repeated results.... that is what science is all about.
kkp5200 2 years ago
its really remarkable that such a renown person as a world famous atheist can back all of his theories about life with such a pathetic explanation as "designer aliens". it would be better if he said he didn't know,
kkp5200 2 years ago
Well actually if you watch the whole clip, the reason he mentions "designer aliens" is because he was asked IF there was intelligent design, what would have most likely caused it.
Richard Dawkins has made his position known that he doesn't believe Aliens exist. Being an Atheist, he also doesn't think a God exists, and he finds MORE likely (but he disbelieves in both remember) to be Aliens.
Totally quoting him out of context.
BrellK 2 years ago
3:23: this is not Ben speaking, it is Richard describing a possibility of the origin of life.
"ok really important" highlighting comes across the screen so people actually listen to his own, un-interrupted description.
kkp5200 2 years ago
3:14 IS Ben Stein asking Dawkins the question to which I mention. Previous to this, he says nobody knows how life started.
At 3:14, Ben Stein asks "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in Genetics or in Evolution?" To answer the question, Dawkins says IF there was Intelligent Design, he finds it more LIKELY to be Aliens than a God, neither of which be believes in. Just as I said previously.
BrellK 2 years ago
ok, the point is, Alien Creators in Richards mind are more probable then a Biblical Creator.
I cant say it any more clear than that...
kkp5200 2 years ago
I would agree with you on that.
I would also agree with him tho :P
Either way, I think I made the point that this video is quote mining. I understand you probably didn't intentionally do that though :D
BrellK 2 years ago
alrighty, thanks for watching, listening :)
kkp5200 2 years ago
That's because alien creators ARE more probable- we are living examples of that. Dawkins is talking about beings that evolved, just like we did, with the ability to genetically engineer organisms and send life to other planet, just like we do. Given the size of the universe it's entirely possible that there is extraterrestrial life as technologically advanced as we are, if not more so.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago