Richard Dawkins On Panspermia And The Origin Of Life

[Ultimatetruthseeker1]

Mockery is made of those who do not conform to the laws of the'church of progress', those brave academics who speak out, lose their tenures and get isolated from 'science' which is supposed to be objective. We now have 'celebrity' scientists like dawkins. I'm a scientist get me out of my ivory tower is now being planned by the fox network!! God must be dead!!

[Ultimatetruthseeker1]

nemuburro, its obvious that we are in a dark age at the moment. millions die from starvation every day on this planet. The wealth is in the hands of the few who control everything. 'Bread and games' for the masses have been replaced with video games, sport and reality tv. Dawkins and the church of progress are the new inquisition, Science is the new religion, it is a crime to question the reputations and theories of the bishops of science, safe in their ivory towers. tbc

[prime440]

Dawkins is a lost soul relying on darwinism 

[shantih433]

Science is an interminable process. In this sense it has a better grasp on reality because it does not assume that--at any given point--we have discovered 'the truth' (thought certainly some individual scientists might make this mistake from time to time). Religion, on the other hand, is the concretion and dogmatization of ideas and perceptions, and people who limit themselves in this way cannot expect to be cognitively or experientially free.

[prime440]

@shantih433 i dissagree with you completely take louis pastuer for example , he is one of the most credible scientists to ever live and he believes in a god, that didnt keep him from his success in biochemistry.

[shantih433]

@prime440 Pasteur's religion did not conflict with his biochemical work, therefore he was cognitively 'allowed' to make new discoveries and accept new information. Religion doesn't interfere with free thought about all ideas, but rather only those that conflict with core beliefs. This is why, even thought the Earth truly revolved around the sun, many 16th century scientists couldn't accept it, because they weren't free to consider that possibility.

[prime440]

@shantih433 i rest my case

[shantih433]

@prime440 ...because cases that are dead are able to rest quite soundly.

[Kan2209]

A good question to ask oneself is "Why can't science find God?"

[shandcunt]

@Kan2209 Why is that a good question to ask oneself?

[Kan2209]

@shandcunt Well, why can't it? Why is everything always explainable by other means than god? Why is god not needed anywhere else than inthe minds of the ignorant? Everytime something is investigated, never does evidence pont towards there being a god, but infact things always point to natural causality and nothing more. I know science isn't an anti-god movement, if god is, then it is a part of science, but god just isn't seen anywhere, and the likelihood of god is dropping drastically.

[shandcunt]

@Kan2209 Why can't sceince find god? I see where your coming from now and agree, well played sir

[Kan2209]

@MrWhatever45 I dont believe in god.

Were you responding to someone else, or did you misinterpret something I said? Maybe I can ellaborate if I was being unclear.

[Kan2209]

@MrWhatever45 Oh, hang on.

You were actually thanking me for proving a thought through someone else, were you?

In that case, let me be the jest of this situation. I've had a bottle of wine. :)

[prime440]

@Kan2209because science cant always explain supernatural phenomena humans are limited to thought process and usage of total brain functions GOD is unlimited if we as humans could explain GOD to an exact science he wouldnt be GOD. that is very logical.

[Kan2209]

@prime It depends on what one means by god. Some individual and seperate particular man on a throne existing, a seperate entity from "matter" etc. This god is the god people try and assert, and this can be understood by man. If by god one means the entirety of what we investigate, if we would know everything there is to know, and that would = god, then sure thing. God is too much for us to possibly ever know. Supernaturality is relative, and thus is no argument.

[prime440]

@Kan2209 on the contrary scientific theory is used to try to propose an explanation to supernatural phenomena

[Kan2209]

@prime440 Again, supernatural = a relative term. Something supernatural requires someone who does not understand the nature of a certain event. Some other definition of supernatural is silly, since anything which is, is natural. If I could summon a goat from hell it would be natural. The scientific theory is for investigating what people think is. Constructivist science tries to create an image of the world in words. One can uncertainly claim supernaturality until shown to obey causal laws.

[rhadiel]

Panspermia is just a simple - albeit modern - sorry excuse to explain life, just like religion. It just 'blames' Earth's life on external factors. I`m not denying it but has the same fundamental fault as any god. If god created everything, who created god? If life appeared somewhere else, how did it appear?

[byteresistor]

I don't really see panspermia a cop-out from having to explain how life came to earth but a viable choise to consider to the alternative (life began in here in the first place). Keep in mind that even the alternative doesn't try to explain the origin of all life but the origin of life on this planet (which happens to be the only life we know of so far). The origin of all life may be from one cause or perhaps life has evolved on its own on separate occasions (if there is life elsewhere).

[IcedPhoenix666]

Panspermia? WTF? In what second does he talk about that?

[grimwatcher]

And For the last Fucking time!! The theory of evolution explains the development of biodiversity on earth, not its origin! It's the same misconception that goes around about the Big Bang, which details the development of the universe after a one trillionth of a second after the birth of the universe.

[disturbthedead]

@grimwatcher

There is no point in getting angry at them, for they know not what they do. But they BELIEVE that what they know is right, so how can we compete with that? :P They are but simple folk. Even parasites serve their purpose, or something like that...

[grimwatcher]

Ben Stein is fucking jerk for pulling that editing trick on Richard Dawkins

[53dumey]

But DICKY,

You have'nt began to find the Evidence for the first Self Replicating Molocule.

And, until you do, then your whole theory for Evolution goes down the Shitter !

[cayetanoluis]

"And, until you do, then your whole theory for Evolution goes down the Shiiter!"

A stupid claim, given that there are masses of evidence for evolution which took place subsequent to the origin of life (which we still don't have an explanation for). Even if we NEVER knew how life originated, we would still have undeniable evidence that evolution has happened since then.

[heaton916]

Atheist so blind

[disturbthedead]

@heaton916

Please, do enlighten us

[heaton916]

oh please please!

u still wrong

[disturbthedead]

I know i;m wrong, I just want to know why you think you are right?

[heaton916]

ok um should i believe God or Bible?

[disturbthedead]

um... i don't know... should you? I know you have faith, and that makes up for everything by promising everlasting life. I wish but to pose one simple question. Love, a simple yet amazing weapon, is it not? The only way you will get to heaven is by loving god unconditionally. The whole idea of loving unconditionally is to dedicate yourself without any expectation of being rewarded. But what if god, even after all the love you gave him would still send you to hell? Would you still love him then?

[disturbthedead]

If you answered no please bare with me a little more. That would mean that your love is not unconditional but motivated by your desire to reach heaven, which is not faith if you ask me.

If by any chance you answered yes, that would mean you would dedicate your life to an unjust and not so loving god that does only what he pleases. One could just as well worship a golden calf, and still get all the benefits

But then again it's said that love is blind. Maybe not unconditional, but surely blind.

[heaton916]

i know what u mean. the Bible said 666 is coming out soon i believe that stuff. if theyre right now i aint gona do that shit i would die for Jesus.

im a sinner i smoke and drink i know it wrong. (bible said dont do dat.) sorry my english sucks

i from Russia

[astalavisitor]

@ heaton916 Where did the Bible says you shall not smoke and drink? lmao

utter b s

[heaton916]

Richard dawking is fucked up already he knows God is real hes a liar piece of shit thats why ppl believe him. i used to be an atheist. (science n my ass) Read on psalm book hope ur brain working.

[astalavisitor]

iread only numbers, and from what i ve seen so far in the university Catholic Church isTHE RICHEST ORGANIZATION EVER EXISTED ON PLANET EARTH!

[heaton916]

Catholic is wrong trust me bro :)

In modern society, there is currently sufficient food and transportation facilities to feed everyone on earth.Greed, politics, prejudice, laziness, and apathy causes thousands of people to die of starvation. If we loved our neighbors as much a we loved ourselves or, even more, we loved one another as Jesus loved us then no one would die of starvation Therefore in today's world, famine is a moral wrong. With love in Christ :)

[astalavisitor]

Did i say Catholic Church is right?

[BunnaySango]

If everyone lived then we would run out of food very quickly. It's the law of the jungle, hoard and protect what is yours, take from others and claim it for yourself. It's now living things survive. Even plants do it. An oak will eventually outgrow a maple and claim all the sunlight for itself while the maple withers and dies.

[BenZeneProject]

So carbon based life forms are commonplace then?

I was captivated by the first question.

[guydecervens]

Dawkins doesn't believe in God because he has never seen him had contact with him and has no scientific proof of him. But he believes 'Aliens' whom he has never seen, never had contact with and has no scientific proof for! Once Crick discovered DNA and the complexity of the cell the game was up for the evolutionists. No scientist could claim such a complex nano universe had 'evolved' so they said 'aliens' did it. But how did the 'aliens' come about? Other aliens. Wait, how old is the universe?

[TaiFerret]

No scientist can tell for sure how the first cells came about, but there are hypotheses. I don't think any scientist believes life is made by aliens. The reason why most atheists believe in aliens has nothing to do with the complexity of life. It's more like: if there's life on Earth then why not on another planets?

[CanadaRox7861]

he just said he doesn't believe that the residue was the remains of extinct species, therefore he does not believe in aliens. He is just saying that the emergence of life is more probable than we once thought it to be. He doesn't believe in god because god comes forma storybook written by people, and people have a very long history of being wrong.. at least science has some margin of correctness to it, even if it is a human invention.

[CanadaRox7861]

@ guydecervens

[BradanKAnderson]

I'm sorry that you watched Ben Stein's cut scene asking what Richard Dawkins would propose would consitute the creation of life here on earth. Dawkins actually said (you can look this clip up on youtube) that if life were to be "created", it would be because a species on another planet "seeded" life on earth, but that species would have had to evolved by classic darwinian means. He was asked to merely hypothesize an unlikely thing, and Ben stein pulled a dirty, sly trick by cutting the scene.

[NewColdness]

In my understanding, science isn't really about asking "why." It's about asking "how." Philosophy is about "why."

That's not to say that either one is better or worse than the other; they're concerned with different questions.

[PsyReporter]

Atheïsts seem so stupid in my eyes. Ok, there may not be a fysical God or 'something' that just created the human body from nothing.

However, they look at the consequences of life and just think it is as it is without anything else to cause it to want to live.

Like in this video when professor Dawkins suggests: the origin of life is just the origin of the first self replicating molecule. After that, it will just keep going by natural selection itself.

[PsyReporter]

But isn't this a stupid thought when you think about it deeper. Something that is as it is, has no need to improve.

Look arround you, you can see a lot of simularities. There is a thrive to inteligence, inteligence to escape from death and to do so much more.

It would seem undespictable to me that there is a will to live, some force that thrives us. As something that is as it is can not have a will to live.

[PsyReporter]

That is the reason natural selection is just the most basic perception on the concequences of life.

It is like someone looking at a cup of coffee that is filled and observe that it will try to flatten out. But it does not take in considderation the person that is pouring in the coffee.

But he does not seem to understand that there is more to it then just natural selection to become what we are today.

[PsyReporter]

Think about it: something that is as it is, can not be life. Natural selection is a process that is as it is. So it can't explain the origin of life, or why we grow out of it. Natural selection is what you can observe at the surface. It is not what actually gets us to evolve.

Maybe Einstein was right after all, and there is a cosmological constant in the universe that disproves the Big Bang theory and may also explain the origin of life.

[PsyReporter]

With 2 forces: force X as the force of existence, and Gravity, the force of nothing.

Because when Gravity would win, there would be nothing at all.

[nemuburro]

natural selection is not a theory of the origin of life. that is clearly stated in origin of the species. natural selection explains the diversity of life. nothing gets us to evolve. as we replicate, we can't replicate perfectly. one cat is born and it is a lil faster than the other cats, simply by chance. however it will live longer and fuck more and have a better chance at giving birth to other faster cats. not everything happens for a reason. now there are cheetahs b/c of this.

[PsyReporter]

you're very wrong with this, if it would be chance it would be chance for nothing at all. As if there is no will for this chance to occur....

The physical can't be the source of the physical. Any person can understand that.

And I think if you would call this force God, it is better then to say there is nothing because it can't be measured.

[nemuburro]

what does that vague statement mean, the physical can't come from the physical? ask anyone to explain that with examples and scientific evidence and i bet you will change your mind about anyone understanding that. everyone can understand 2+2. what im saying is copy machines are not perfect.

[PsyReporter]

How can something that can be measured/perceived, be the source for existence of itself ?

This is simple logic.

No matter how far we go in science, we will always have to ask the question: why.

We can't go past that barier. However, we exist so there must be something that makes us exist and live.

Some people tried to give mening to this by naming it "God", but when you think logically you can see that there must be something at the source that can't possibly be measured.

[RazialSion]

PsyReporter its kinda hard to follow what it is your saying. ok your sayin that you find people who are atheists to be a bit stupid because they look at the consequences of life the way they are. thats not a very logical way to explain your opinion.

[PsyReporter]

Well, I am just saying that I think you would not be an atheïst when you would understand sertain things of life, that will make it logically to believe in God.

I do not believe in God, but I am 100% sure there is more to life then what we can see. And naming it God can be pretty understandable. Also Einstein believed in God btw that he called himself Nature (Spinoza's God).

[soundbeans]

Shut up please

[nemuburro]

atheist keep asking why and keep finding answers. maybe we will go on forever, but we have made so many advances and improved quality of life by so much as we keep on asking why and finding answers. if people stop asking WHY we will return to the f'in dark ages. don't say were stupid b/c we keep asking why. we do find answers and we support those answers, those "stupid theories", w/ real life facts.

[PsyReporter]

Asking why is essential for life, believing there is nothing more then we can see is NOT.

[tha3immortals]

@PsyReporter opinion.

[dashan091]

@nemuburro Atheists DONT ask "why questions. Science tells us HOW things might happen never why. Dont confuse mechanism (science) and agency (cause). Ask celibrated atheist, Peter Atkins who says' why questions are silly questions'. How about this: Why is the universe built on abstract immutable math' formulae. Why is the universe rational intelligible (obeys laws). How do immaterial realities exists in a world where matter & energy is the only game in town? Next question?

[nemuburro]

@dashan091 semantics, open ass, insert fist.

[5tonyvvvv]

@nemuburro Panspermia..LOL, what a joke, anything to avoid God right!..lol  Homochirality by natural mechanisms is impossible! Life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible, atheists pushing the problem out in to space answers nothing! Who created the aliens? where did the INFORMATION come from out in space??? Atheist origins have just as much Faith as what Christians believe!!

[nemuburro]

@5tonyvvvv what a joke, anything to avoid reality. atheist aren't here to push problems out into space. a lot of people that discover scientific breakthroughs (that push faith and supernatural belief further onto the fringe) are believers. if things were left up to people like you we would still be in the dark ages thinking the world was flat and thunder came form angels bowling. on another note, who said there was aliens.

[5tonyvvvv]

@nemuburro Panspermia requires Faith! All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.Chirality!

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!! Which life can't use!! This is what we see in nature and in labs! You like most people have been Indoctrinated to believe abiogenesis is fact, Learn homochirality life can't come about through natural mechanisms!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@nemuburro THe dark ages!!..LOL In the time and Darwin, the could not even see a cell. Darwin thought a cell was a glob of jelly that could just form in a warm mud puddle!!!! They knew nothing about amino acids and molecular machines, and DNA!! They had no clue what INFORMATION WAS!!! and how or where it organized it self!..and we still don't today!! because Information comes from INTELLIGENCE!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@666jack999 Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!

[5tonyvvvv]

@666jack999 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!

Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@666jack999 Jack szostak and craig venter, use templates and synthesizing machines! Time hurts molecules! They break down to quickly, and these atheist scientists know this! that's why they carefully protect everything! Every chemical reaction is carefully controlled!!

These reactions take place only in the labs they are conducted in!