Of course, he does not contradict himself. He just depicts the possibility that life on Earth might have been created by another civilization which had evolved and come to existence by some Darwinian means too. This case btw would only confirm Darwin's theory and put it into a much different and interesting perspective as far as the time required for the development of a civilization reaching such a high complexity is concerned.
I dont see whats so hard here...Dawkins is talking about aliens.. I believe he doesnt really buy the aliens seeding planet earth theory-here hes just showing an example of how even if science did point to design-0it deoesnt automatically mean god. The alien theory is the only design theory I could accept--but im agnostic on that one-Im pretty sure such evolved beings wouldnt want us to call them god if they did exist anyway.
i love to hear the phrase 'to beg the question' used correctly, doesn't seem to happen often enough .. also he's made it clear enough what his views on god are, i.e. an abrahamic, theistic 'god' is highly unlikely, but feel free to give the same name to whatever you feel deserves it, as einstein (for instance) had .. he's also made clear his views on the correct attitude for a scientist to have too, that they should be open to any hypothesis that doesn't deny current scientific understanding
no, a voiceover is making statements outside of the debate that is taking place. it is deplorable because dawkins had no way of responding to that, he should have asked what he wanted during the interview not place comments during the middle of it.
uhm dawkins has said something, watch his lecture at OU, there is an entire segment he made in response with him saying things that are all chopped together. in his last lecture about quotemining he used the ben stein interview as an example. so yes dawkins has definitely said something.
why did you make this video? this interview is deplorable, not only the condescending tone stein uses but the voiceovers and the cuts, anyone knows this is twisting words. dawkins only point here is there couldn't be an end all ultimate power that zapped everything into existance.
I posted the video to see what sort of responses I would get.
Voiceovers? You're not saying that they modified what Dawkins's actually said, are you? If that were true, wouldn't Dawkins have said something? I view Stein's tone as merely questioning, even if the questions are hard.
It is possible. I certainly see no reason why it couldn't create something that we could classify as a different species, which would require quite a lot of time, and also, since it's nearly impossible that the process would be uniform, you would get a species with lots of non-life essential mutations. Not just things like hair color, but physical mutations, such as perhaps a different finger arrangement, but both mutations, if not more, could feasibly be satisfactory.
There are different ways something can evolve. It's not exclusive to animals. For example, an AI creation might evolve itself to better understand a certain type of english phrase, by either allotting more processing power to sentence analytics, or by improving it's method.
As for natural selection: The human body is extremely complex, and when I mentioned "beneficiary traits that don't decide life/death," I was talking about for example, Fingernails. They are useful, but not a life/death req.
what? if evolutions purpose is to constantly adjust animals in a beneficial way why wouldnt it be possible that everything evolved from a very simple organism?
i really cant understand what your idea of it is in that post? do you believe that evolution leads to the diversity of species and that men and chimpanzees are ancestors of the same species?
and uh i think you are terribly confused about natural selection. as far as i know there arent different forms of evolution.
saying he was offering up a random idea was for people like this: Alternate2GOP Yeah it does look like Dawkins got owned there. He'll believe anything, so long as it's not god.
again he doesnt believe that at all he has said so many times.
and if you dont believe in evolution i'm sorry for you, 95% of the scientific community believes it, and the others only dont because of idiotic religious beliefs. if you dont believe in evolution go get fucked.
I used the term Evolution loosely. Evolution is a concept: it's simply something improving over time. Now Natural Selection is a form of evolution. Natural Selection makes all logical sense, and I completely support the ideas behind it, however, I do not support the idea that it can take tiny, small microorganisms and create them into being with such complexity and beneficiary traits that don't decide life/death relating to Natural Selection. Creation comes before Change.
yea religious people are even dumber than i give credit for, notice he didnt say 'i believe' very important here because hawkins was simply offering up other explanations of our origins. in no way has dawkings said he actually believes that, it was offering up any possible theory that shows we dont have to just accept that the reason we are here is automatically attributed to god
IF there was an "intelligent designer" for species on earth, it would certainly not be a god, is what dawkins is trying to say. Although evidence would say that this is highly unlikely (although far, FAR more likely than a godly designer), life COULD have been seeded on the earth by an advanced civilization.
Atheists speak about probability. Theists speak about absolutes.
Well, I can certainly see that some people have very strong beliefs. I can also see that an atheist is more likely than someone of religious or spiritual values to actually search for "richard dawkins." Now I know what I'm in for :p
No worries, I can hear many secular evangelists saying to themselves "Oh shit! Was that the truth???"
The new brand of atheism I tend to see is probably the biggest hypocrisy of all recorded history: ranting and raving about how you don't care about, or don't believe in something.
He's talking about pan spermia there anyway... but the point he is making is that you can't just posit a complex being as an answer to the problem of the infinite regression.
You seem to be implying that he contradicted himself, but he hasn't. Dawkins is against ID, period (and well he should be, as there's zero evidence for it, and it isn't even logical).
In the second clip he's simply presenting a possible (not necessarily plausible, by any means) case where you could have an intelligent designer seeding life on Earth. That's a completely different beast than Intelligent Design (note the capitalization).
>"You seem to be implying that he contradicted himself, but he hasn't."
Absolutely right, and nobody needs scientific illiterate Ben Stein to interpret what Dawkins has already thoroughly explained in his books. To be pestered by this yammering moron on film and then have it diced up by sleazy editors proves nothing.
Of course, he does not contradict himself. He just depicts the possibility that life on Earth might have been created by another civilization which had evolved and come to existence by some Darwinian means too. This case btw would only confirm Darwin's theory and put it into a much different and interesting perspective as far as the time required for the development of a civilization reaching such a high complexity is concerned.
reticulum78 5 months ago
I dont see whats so hard here...Dawkins is talking about aliens.. I believe he doesnt really buy the aliens seeding planet earth theory-here hes just showing an example of how even if science did point to design-0it deoesnt automatically mean god. The alien theory is the only design theory I could accept--but im agnostic on that one-Im pretty sure such evolved beings wouldnt want us to call them god if they did exist anyway.
growguyuk 7 months ago
i love to hear the phrase 'to beg the question' used correctly, doesn't seem to happen often enough .. also he's made it clear enough what his views on god are, i.e. an abrahamic, theistic 'god' is highly unlikely, but feel free to give the same name to whatever you feel deserves it, as einstein (for instance) had .. he's also made clear his views on the correct attitude for a scientist to have too, that they should be open to any hypothesis that doesn't deny current scientific understanding
bakayurei 1 year ago
and another
/watch?v=Dusa3_-EviQ
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
another shameful attempt by xians to make dawkins looks bad:
/watch?v=W1XgqSR7WRE&feature=channel_page
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
here watch this
/watch?v=xHt2BXwtTVw
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
so yea, do you see how pointless this interview is, its a cut for the sole purpose of making dawkins look bad because the ID case is so weak
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
The voice-over may be spoken by someone who also appears on-screen
look up voiceover please, thats from wiki
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
no, a voiceover is making statements outside of the debate that is taking place. it is deplorable because dawkins had no way of responding to that, he should have asked what he wanted during the interview not place comments during the middle of it.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
uhm dawkins has said something, watch his lecture at OU, there is an entire segment he made in response with him saying things that are all chopped together. in his last lecture about quotemining he used the ben stein interview as an example. so yes dawkins has definitely said something.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Sp it's not a voiceover. Voiceover is when you replace talking with other talking. Replacing audio.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
why did you make this video? this interview is deplorable, not only the condescending tone stein uses but the voiceovers and the cuts, anyone knows this is twisting words. dawkins only point here is there couldn't be an end all ultimate power that zapped everything into existance.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
I posted the video to see what sort of responses I would get.
Voiceovers? You're not saying that they modified what Dawkins's actually said, are you? If that were true, wouldn't Dawkins have said something? I view Stein's tone as merely questioning, even if the questions are hard.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
okay i automatically thought you meant biological evolution in the first place since your mentioning it was it referrence to the origin of life.
so you didnt answer the rest of my questions. to what extent do you think evolution occurs in animals? can it create a new species?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Sorry ran out of room.
It is possible. I certainly see no reason why it couldn't create something that we could classify as a different species, which would require quite a lot of time, and also, since it's nearly impossible that the process would be uniform, you would get a species with lots of non-life essential mutations. Not just things like hair color, but physical mutations, such as perhaps a different finger arrangement, but both mutations, if not more, could feasibly be satisfactory.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
There are different ways something can evolve. It's not exclusive to animals. For example, an AI creation might evolve itself to better understand a certain type of english phrase, by either allotting more processing power to sentence analytics, or by improving it's method.
As for natural selection: The human body is extremely complex, and when I mentioned "beneficiary traits that don't decide life/death," I was talking about for example, Fingernails. They are useful, but not a life/death req.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
what? if evolutions purpose is to constantly adjust animals in a beneficial way why wouldnt it be possible that everything evolved from a very simple organism?
i really cant understand what your idea of it is in that post? do you believe that evolution leads to the diversity of species and that men and chimpanzees are ancestors of the same species?
and uh i think you are terribly confused about natural selection. as far as i know there arent different forms of evolution.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
i meant dawkins, typo with the h there
saying he was offering up a random idea was for people like this: Alternate2GOP Yeah it does look like Dawkins got owned there. He'll believe anything, so long as it's not god.
again he doesnt believe that at all he has said so many times.
and if you dont believe in evolution i'm sorry for you, 95% of the scientific community believes it, and the others only dont because of idiotic religious beliefs. if you dont believe in evolution go get fucked.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Language, please.
I used the term Evolution loosely. Evolution is a concept: it's simply something improving over time. Now Natural Selection is a form of evolution. Natural Selection makes all logical sense, and I completely support the ideas behind it, however, I do not support the idea that it can take tiny, small microorganisms and create them into being with such complexity and beneficiary traits that don't decide life/death relating to Natural Selection. Creation comes before Change.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
yea religious people are even dumber than i give credit for, notice he didnt say 'i believe' very important here because hawkins was simply offering up other explanations of our origins. in no way has dawkings said he actually believes that, it was offering up any possible theory that shows we dont have to just accept that the reason we are here is automatically attributed to god
get a brain you stupid bastards
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
"didnt say 'i believe' very important here because hawkins was simply offering up other explanations of our origins."
Since when was it stated that he wasn't?
" it was offering up any possible theory that shows we dont have to just accept that the reason we are here is automatically attributed to god"
You mean evolution etc.
"get a brain you stupid bastards"
Don't need to tell you how ironic that is.
LomocosWrath 2 years ago
Yeah it does look like Dawkins got owned there. He'll believe anything, so long as it's not god.
Alternate2GOP 3 years ago
IF there was an "intelligent designer" for species on earth, it would certainly not be a god, is what dawkins is trying to say. Although evidence would say that this is highly unlikely (although far, FAR more likely than a godly designer), life COULD have been seeded on the earth by an advanced civilization.
Atheists speak about probability. Theists speak about absolutes.
zeroyon04 3 years ago 3
Well, I can certainly see that some people have very strong beliefs. I can also see that an atheist is more likely than someone of religious or spiritual values to actually search for "richard dawkins." Now I know what I'm in for :p
LomocosWrath 3 years ago
No worries, I can hear many secular evangelists saying to themselves "Oh shit! Was that the truth???"
The new brand of atheism I tend to see is probably the biggest hypocrisy of all recorded history: ranting and raving about how you don't care about, or don't believe in something.
Alternate2GOP 3 years ago
Ben Stein is a fucking moron. He's like any other religious moron. Taking science out of context.
Draeka 3 years ago 2
He's talking about pan spermia there anyway... but the point he is making is that you can't just posit a complex being as an answer to the problem of the infinite regression.
BipedalHumanoid 3 years ago
You seem to be implying that he contradicted himself, but he hasn't. Dawkins is against ID, period (and well he should be, as there's zero evidence for it, and it isn't even logical).
In the second clip he's simply presenting a possible (not necessarily plausible, by any means) case where you could have an intelligent designer seeding life on Earth. That's a completely different beast than Intelligent Design (note the capitalization).
samlowry1971 3 years ago 5
>"You seem to be implying that he contradicted himself, but he hasn't."
Absolutely right, and nobody needs scientific illiterate Ben Stein to interpret what Dawkins has already thoroughly explained in his books. To be pestered by this yammering moron on film and then have it diced up by sleazy editors proves nothing.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago