COLUMBINE

[waldo]

Could Dawkins be referring to the Thetans as the aliens who started life on earth?

So Dawkins claimed aliens started life on earth did he?

You're repeating the same lame response by those who either don't understand what "out of context" is, or are just in denial! Tsk. Tsk.

Here, you better read the transcript carefully.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

. . .

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

you went a long way to reinforce a/your failing point - you claimed a definitive and the transcript words counter your definitive claim with repeated references to, 'could, possibility, possible'. Of course, you also missed the... point (bold emphasized for you above)... i.e., no spontaneous virgin birth!

Edited February 13, 2013 by waldo

[betsy]

you went a long way to reinforce a/your failing point - you claimed a definitive and the transcript words counter your definitive claim with repeated references to, 'could, possibility, possible'. Of course, you also missed the... point (bold emphasized for you above)!

But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Your bold quote does not have a point. Explain what point you both imagine about it!

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

The only point I see about Dawkins, is his admitting, "I don't know."

So if he doesn't know...he can't say and conclude....

But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously.

He. Doesn't. Know.

That's the sensible point.

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[waldo]

The only point I see about Dawkins, is his admitting, "I don't know."

He. Doesn't. Know.

you're. Repeating. Yourself!

Here, you better read the transcript carefully.

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

again. No. Spontaneous. Virgin. Birth!

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, thank you for showing that Dawkins did not claim that he believes life was seeded by aliens. Dawkins was asked, hypothetically, what it would mean for Intelligent Design to be true. He gave, as an example only, that it would be true if aliens had created life on Earth, but did not endorse this view. If we ever did find evidence of design, it is more likely that the interfering party would be an evolved life form from another part of the galaxy.

Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn't exist yet when asked if he would be willing to put a number on it....why did he seem so uncertain?

Why would he feel uncomfortable in putting a number on it if he's so confident about it?

Agnostic! Agnostic!

Like most atheists, Dawkins is of the agnostic variety. The likelihood of the existence of a god, Big Foot or the Minotaur is infinitesimally small, but impossible to prove. Claiming there are no gods is almost certainly true, but we cannot say for sure. Since, it is impossible to put an accurate number on something like this, what is the point of assigning one?

Scientists deal in evidence. We have several theories for the origin of life on earth, but as of yet, we don't know for sure. To claim otherwise would be dishonest. Inventing a god to fill in the gaps in our knowledge does not answer any questions. It simply adds an unlikely fairy tale and more questions.

[betsy]

[/size]

you're. Repeating. Yourself!

again. No. Spontaneous. Virgin. Birth!

I guess that's all you have to say.....bye-bye Waldo.

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, thank you for showing that Dawkins did not claim that he believes life was seeded by aliens. Dawkins was asked, hypothetically, what it would mean for Intelligent Design to be true.

What hypothetical baloney are you talking about????? Watch the clip again!

Mighty AC

He gave, as an example only, that it would be true if aliens had created life on Earth, but did not endorse this view. If we ever did find evidence of design, it is more likely that the interfering party would be an evolved life form from another part of the galaxy.

He was asked a direct question. He gave what he thinks is a possible answer!

Like

most atheists, Dawkins is of the agnostic variety. The likelihood of the existence of a god, Big Foot or the Minotaur is infinitesimally small, but impossible to prove. Claiming there are no gods is almost certainly true, but we cannot say for sure. Since, it is impossible to put an accurate number on something like this, what is the point of assigning one?

He is an agnostic. Never mind the variety - we'd think he's some kind of a fruit!

Scientists deal in evidence. We have several theories for the origin of life on earth, but as of yet, we don't know for sure. To claim otherwise would be dishonest. Inventing a god to fill in the gaps in our knowledge does not answer any questions. It simply adds an unlikely fairy tale and more questions.

And your camp have not provided any satisfying evidences. In fact the more they try, the more they only proved how perfectly designed the universe, the earth and life on earth are.....

Nobody's inventing a god in Intelligent Design. The problem with you guys is that your judgement is clouded by your hatred for religion, or anything that might suggest the supernatural....that your minds automatically shut down at the mention of supernatural possibilities.

That's why your kind of science is very much out-dated! The guidelines are centuries old.

You cling to the science of primitive days - the days without advanced hi-tech! Scientists like Dawkins are afraid to step out of the box.

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

What hypothetical baloney are you talking about????? Watch the clip again!

He was asked a direct question. He gave what he thinks is a possible answer![/Quote]

This was the hypothetical question asked:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins simply provided a hypothetical way in which an intelligent designer would be possible. An intelligent species, seeds life on a planet much like we might seed life in an aquarium. He did not endorse this view, just listed a hypothetical possibility.

He is an agnostic. Never mind the variety - we'd think he's some kind of a fruit![/Quote]Yes, the phrases gnostic/agnostic deal in knowledge claims. Most atheists, do not claim to know that a god does not exist. This is sometimes called negative atheism. I'm not sure what you mean by fruit, care to explain?

[Mighty AC]

And your camp have not provided any satisfying evidences. In fact the more they try, the more they only proved how perfectly designed the universe, the earth and life on earth are.....

Nobody's inventing a god in Intelligent Design. The problem with you guys is that your judgement is clouded by your hatred for religion, or anything that might suggest the supernatural....that your minds automatically shut down at the mention of supernatural possibilities.

That's why your kind of science is very much out-dated! The guidelines are centuries old.

You cling to the science of primitive days - the days without advanced hi-tech! Scientists like Dawkins are afraid to step out of the box.

Science deals in evidence and there is no evidence for design. The problem with claiming a designer, be it a god or other intelligent life, is responsible for creating complex processes is the designer is even more complex than the phenomenon you are trying to explain. So now you have to explain the origins of the designer and you have an infinite regress.

On the other hand, we are accumulating evidence for abiogenesis. We can demonstrate how the precursors to DNA can form from substances and conditions present on an early earth. This theory seems very plausible to me; but, as of yet we do not have enough evidence to say we know for sure. Anyway, it is exciting that evidence is very quickly pushing the god of the gaps back to a time before an explosion seeded our area of the universe with hydrogen and helium.

[cybercoma]

This was the hypothetical question asked:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins simply provided a hypothetical way in which an intelligent designer would be possible. An intelligent species, seeds life on a planet much like we might seed life in an aquarium. He did not endorse this view, just listed a hypothetical possibility.

Probabilities and hypotheticals are gradients that the person you are arguing with doesn't understand.

[betsy]

This was the hypothetical question asked:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins simply provided a hypothetical way in which an intelligent designer would be possible. An intelligent species, seeds life on a planet much like we might seed life in an aquarium. He did not endorse this view, just listed a hypothetical possibility.

Hypothetical or not, he did admit to the possibility. How can he not? He's got nothing to show to back up what he believes - and he's so stubborn to not want to consider the possibility of a god (even after he already admitted in another interview that he is not sure God does not exist)!

What's left for him to say when he's pinned down to answer the question of how he think it all started? He very much couldn't say spontaneously sudden appearance - like magic - could he? And yes, by his kind of mentality he'd much rather believe the same way Scientologists do (Star Trek), than having to say that it's possible that God or a god had created the first spark of life.

What more, the way he responded about the possibilities:

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Now, he may or may not actually believe what he said, but obviously he's throwingt that line of possibility to his book readers - especially the New Atheists out there - as a line of hope. For them not to fret, since the possibility is that it's aliens from outer space that started life here on earth, not God or a god. So no worries, keep buying his books for crutches.

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Btw, aside from being the popular guru of New Atheist, what's really Richard Dawkins' scientific accomplishment? Anything stellar that makes him stand out from other ordinary scientists?

[guyser]

Im guessing you dont know of the basic of life forms coming to this planet from another exploding star?

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Dawkins, like most atheists, does not believe in gods but will not claim to know something he cannot. Yes the claims that God, Brahma or Xenu created the earth, or brought life to it, are equally ridiculous but still technically possible.

The religious confirm their knowledge claims with the fact that they believe them. I have faith God exists, therefore God does exist. Rational people can't do that. We use evidence and reason when forming beliefs. If an atheist said "God absolutely does not exist" they would be making a dishonest faith claim just like the religious.

So when Dawkins says there is an extremely remote possibility that gods exist, he didn't slip up and it's not a sign of weakness. He is just being honest.

[Mighty AC]

Btw, aside from being the popular guru of New Atheist, what's really Richard Dawkins' scientific accomplishment? Anything stellar that makes him stand out from other ordinary scientists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[BubberMiley]

For them not to fret, since the possibility is that it's aliens from outer space that started life here on earth, not God or a god.

If an alien created life on earth, wouldn't that alien, by definition, be God?

[Sleipnir]

If an alien created life on earth, wouldn't that alien, by definition, be God?

I think to be god is to be omnipotent. That is, you could create life but that wouldn't make you a god, vice-versa.

[Wayward Son]

Btw, aside from being the popular guru of New Atheist, what's really Richard Dawkins' scientific accomplishment? Anything stellar that makes him stand out from other ordinary scientists?

Yes. Dawkins' scientific accomplishments place him among the pinnacle of living scientists.

At the end of each chapter in the textbook "Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach" by Alcock, he lists the most important journal articles for each topic. I never tallied them, but the number by Dawkins appeared to easily eclipse any other scientist (with the possible exception of W.D. Hamilton). People don't realize both the quality and quantity of Dawkins scientific work (which is really not surprising, as for instance, I would not be surprised if no one here has even heard of Hamilton).

His 1976 book "The Selfish Gene" will probably always be considered a landmark in biology. In fact a book (Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think) has been written about the impact of "The Selfish Gene" and his academic work (mentioned above). The book is a collection of essays written by some of the world's most renowned scientists. There is also the book "Dawkins vs. Gould" which talks about the scientific disputes between Dawkins and Gould (although in reality it was a dispute in between Dawkins, Williams, Wilson, Hamilton, Trivers and Smith etc on the one side and Gould, Rose, Lewontin and Kamin etc on the other side).

The book "Defenders of the Truth" is in my opinion the best book on that topic (as it thoroughly looks at all the major contributors, and not just Dawkins and Gould), but it is hard to find a copy. (My personal view of the dispute: In short, Dawkins' side has come out on top because they were led by the science and evidence, whereas the other side was influenced by political and ideological desires. On an emotional level I have always wanted to side with Gould et al, but when I look at the evidence I simply can't).

Edited February 14, 2013 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

"what's really Dawkins' scientific accomplishment?" Unbelievable, eh? Pages and pages across several threads trashing Richard Dawkins and betsy has absolutely no idea who the hell he is.

[Mighty AC]

You'd think she would at least want to know her enemy.

[g_bambino]

"what's really Dawkins' scientific accomplishment?" Unbelievable, eh? Pages and pages across several threads trashing Richard Dawkins and betsy has absolutely no idea who the hell he is.

He's a damn, dirty atheist. What's more to know?

[GostHacked]

He was asked a direct question. He gave what he thinks is a possible answer!

His direct answer was that he did not know. The other is a possibly hypothetical answer which could be false.

Not knowing and answer does not seem good enough for you. The 'we don't know' is not good enough for you. Only a complete fool would make such an absolute claim that everything in existence was made by a single entity without providing any other evidence other than a simply book which has been modified through the ages when parts of it were shown to be invalid or not in line with an evolving society.

And your camp have not provided any satisfying evidences.

Maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat is more in tune with your version of satisfying evidence.

In fact the more they try, the more they only proved how perfectly designed the universe, the earth and life on earth are.....

How would you know the universe is perfect?

Nobody's inventing a god in Intelligent Design.

This is 100% bullsh!t. But then again, no one here trolls quite like you do Betsy.

[Canuckistani]

Well, a lot of the scientific claims made by Dawkins are disputed by other scientists, and even Dawkins admits he's not 100% certain that he's right, so that just proves that science is just bs anyway and any accomplishments he has in that field are worthless.

On the other hand, science has proven that many things referred to in the bible have or do actually occur. For instance the sun really does rise in the east and set in the west, there really was and is a land called Egypt and there have been calamitous floods all over the world in the past. So science proves that the bible is a factual document, so there.

[g_bambino]

Hypothetical or not, he did admit to the possibility.

Yes, he did. And therein may lie the big difference between him an you.

Can you admit the possibility that Christianity's god did not create the universe and everything in it?

[g_bambino]

cience is just bs anyway...

cience has proven that many things referred to in the bible have or do actually occur.

So, many things in the Bible have been proven true by BS.

Yes, that about sums up betsy's "rationale"; science cannot be supported by science, but the bible can be supported by science.