Richard Dawkins Believes in E.T.
Posted: 09 January 2010 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-01-07

I was on browsing on the web today and I fould something very entertaining. I watched Richard Dawkins, talk about that life may have been created by aliens !

He would rather beleive that little green men may have created life than God. This video is only about 90 seconds long. He has made a right fool of himself. It was embarasing that he has made such statement.

http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/18787/

Let me know what you think.

 Signature 

_______________________
Evolution proven wrong here: http://www.harunyahya.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  663
Joined  2008-05-22
goldenhawk786 - 09 January 2010 03:52 PM

Let me know what you think.

I believe I will, Mr. Hawk. Thank you.

I watched Richard Dawkins, talk about that life may have been created by aliens !

He would rather beleive that little green men may have created life than God. This video is only about 90 seconds long. He has made a right fool of himself. It was embarasing that he has made such statement.

Uh…..I’m a bit confused, Mr. “Islam On The Rise”. Maybe you can help me out here. Would I be correct to postulate that a belief in extra-terrestrial creation is completely laughable…..BUT…..a belief that a really big, really powerful guy named Allah created everything, and then was paid a visit by some old guy flying in on a winged horse…..is completely reasonable to believe?

Please elucidate, my friend.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-01-07
Josh - 09 January 2010 11:52 PM
goldenhawk786 - 09 January 2010 03:52 PM

Let me know what you think.

I believe I will, Mr. Hawk. Thank you.

I watched Richard Dawkins, talk about that life may have been created by aliens !

He would rather beleive that little green men may have created life than God. This video is only about 90 seconds long. He has made a right fool of himself. It was embarasing that he has made such statement.

Uh…..I’m a bit confused, Mr. “Islam On The Rise”. Maybe you can help me out here. Would I be correct to postulate that a belief in extra-terrestrial creation is completely laughable…..BUT…..a belief that a really big, really powerful guy named Allah created everything, and then was paid a visit by some old guy flying in on a winged horse…..is completely reasonable to believe?

Please elucidate, my friend.

Most happy to answer you Josh. The reason why I found it amusing is because this interview, I believe is a sign of a BIG U-TURN from dawkins and in general, the darwinism path. For the last 200 years, darwinists have claimed that life was created by chance. but as science is progressing and is refuting this idea through biology and micro-biology.

Therefore this must have been desperate times as dawkins is now willing to believe in a different intelligent design but not god as the intelligent design which would have been unthinkable decades ago. as for the flying winged horse, i really dont know what myth and fairy tales you haVE BEEN listening to. Hope that answers the question. Thank you

 Signature 

_______________________
Evolution proven wrong here: http://www.harunyahya.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  663
Joined  2008-05-22
goldenhawk786 - 10 January 2010 11:48 AM

For the last 200 years, darwinists have claimed that life was created by chance.

Straw man.

....as for the flying winged horse, i really dont know what myth and fairy tales you haVE BEEN listening to.

Goldenhawk, I was wrong, and I apologize. The story is NOT that Muhammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse. The story is actually that he was pulled by winged horses (plural), and flown from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then magically ascended to heaven accompanied by Gabriel. Then he saw both Paradise and Hell, met different Bible story characters, and spoke directly to Allah.

My mistake.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-01-07
Josh - 10 January 2010 04:37 PM
goldenhawk786 - 10 January 2010 11:48 AM

For the last 200 years, darwinists have claimed that life was created by chance.

Straw man.

....as for the flying winged horse, i really dont know what myth and fairy tales you haVE BEEN listening to.

Goldenhawk, I was wrong, and I apologize. The story is NOT that Muhammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse. The story is actually that he was pulled by winged horses (plural), and flown from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then magically ascended to heaven accompanied by Gabriel. Then he saw both Paradise and Hell, met different Bible story characters, and spoke directly to Allah.

My mistake.

Thats ok. I admire the honesty. The event you are referring to is an Islamic event. Basically Allah took the holy prophet Muhammad (S) to the heavens. But that story i dont believe is wrong as it is tied to my belief in islam. It is because you obviously dont beleive in Islam, i can understand why you would have a iissue with this story.

However, I would like to talk abotu something what we both agree upon. that is science and discussing only facts and evidence. that way we can procedd further better. dont you agree sir ?

 Signature 

_______________________
Evolution proven wrong here: http://www.harunyahya.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  663
Joined  2008-05-22

Sounds good to me. I’m headed out for now, but I’ll check back in later.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2010 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-01-07

ok josh. take care and look after yourself mate.

 Signature 

_______________________
Evolution proven wrong here: http://www.harunyahya.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2010 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  663
Joined  2008-05-22
rays - 22 January 2010 12:03 PM

Hey goldenhawk786,

You’re too hard for these atheists. They can’t handle you logically. Hence the silly cop out replies.

Although I’m the only one in this particular thread who has responded to the hawk, other than you…..I’ll still give you the benefit of the doubt that the above quote, and the rest of your post for that matter, does NOT apply to me. That is because, as you should know by now, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. And I can handle Mr. Hawk logically. And whether or not you may think of my replies as “cop outs”, they are still the most honest replies you will hear on the “God” subject. So you see, the above quote could not possibly apply to me, now could it?

Obviously, the Atheist leader has messed up here as he has done many times in the past. Even on BBC Newsnight he has admitted that they may indeed exit a God. He can’t seem to make up his mind on the subject.

Sounds like Mr. Dawkins is even more honest than I originally thought! Thank you for pointing this out, rays…..now I respect him more!

Nevertheless, the Atheists love him and look up to him. That is why you should respect their choice to follow their selected master. Therefore, please dont be too hard on these gentlemen. Remember Professor Richard Dawkins is their hero. Dick to them is like your Superman.

I suppose that makes you Lex Luthor…..

Would you like it if Clark Kent was caught with his pants down? No.

The fact that you see Richard Dawkins’ moment of honesty as “being caught with his pants down”.....tells me just about all I need to know about you.

Therefore, be kind on that indecisive evolution teacher.

At least you advocate kindness. And I promise to be kind to you, despite your intellectually dishonest religious certainty.

You know what Bender said to Brian about Mr Vernon in the Breakfast Club?

I believe he referred to Mr. Vernon as a “brownie hound” at some point in the movie. Or do you have another quote in mind?

So, please take it easy on Atheists and their “saviour”. They can’t imagine him screwing up.

Their “saviour”? Saviour from what, exactly? What do atheists, in your opinion, feel that they need to be “saved” from? Enlighten me, rays.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 March 2010 02:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2009-05-11

Holy shit. I for sure thought that rays was being sarcastic.

Anyway, it’s always funny to come across an attempt to describe atheists as worshiping Dawkins and essentially viewing him as irrefutable…when theists actually do so with a nonexistent being. I don’t get it, are you trying to say we have more similarities than one would think? Is it as simple as atheists choosing someone they worship to battle a being that theists worship? If so, I think we’re winning so far, cause it’s pretty clear that our ‘god’ is real, while there’s no reason to think yours is.

 Signature 

I would do ecstasy with Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2010 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2005-08-22

Wow, you’re quoting Harun Yayha, cult leader, blackmailer, pimp, crime boss, and all around scumbag. The guy who offered a fishing lure as proof that evolution was wrong? What, is L. Ron Hubbard or Charlie Manson too good for you?

Do you actually know who or what this guy is? Shit flies won’t land on this guy because he’s too dirty. Seriously, look it up, man. You’ll cringe with embarrassment.

The reason that no one is answering you, goldenhawk, is that they don’t want to dignify you, or your source, with a response. I mean, we’ve had some pretty ignorant people on these forums—there’s almost no moderation, which I like… but… WOW…

[ Edited: 06 August 2010 09:27 PM by Elentar]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 03:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04

I realise this is a very old thread - but here’s a point none of you appear to take into account.
Dawkins didn’t say he believed we were created/engineered/interfered with whatever by aliens. He said he thought it was possible.
Possible is a really fun word.
Consider this: It is possible that all the pigs on the earth will grow wings next Wednesday and start flying in circles.
Like the visiting aliens, it’s possible; it’s just not very likely.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2011 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2011-07-25

As this thread seems to be making a revival, I would like to add that this is another example of someone resorting to attacking a specific statement taken out of context. I have seen him talk about this before, and he is merely contemplating an interesting though, no different than physicists bantering about time travel. It is “The mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle. Also, that link is incorrect about the proteins. There have been meteorites that have had over 100 different kinds of amino acids on them. They have also been shown to be able to form in bodies of water with electric stimulation. All of the components required to make protein shaken up by the moving Earth for nearly a billion years. The argument that God exists because scientists can’t produce timelines that are accurate to the second as well as detailed descriptions of every process that occurs in that timeline using only fossils that have a very small chance of forming and argon dating processes is completely pathetic. Also, we know from quantum theory that there is an insanely small chance that proteins could form spontaneously under these conditions, which makes it infinitely more likely than God doing it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2011 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

Dawkins’ conclusion is a good example of the historical fallacy as it explains absolutely nothing about the origin of life.

Here is a good explanation by Christopher Ott.

“Like all fallacies, the historical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, though it is not committed consciously. It is committed in cases where someone is proposing a cause for something in their experience. So it’s really a cause problem. It occurs especially when people try to explain how something came about or came into being.

Examples: How did that stain get on the rug? Where does air come from? How did life originate?

The fallacy is made when something in the thing being explained, winds up in the explanation for that thing.

https://sites.google.com/site/ottsessays/the-historical-fallacy

So here are a couple examples of people doing just that:
?Greek atomists proposed that things like pebbles are made of tinier pebbles called atoms. The cause of pebbles is pebbles.
?The modern Big Bang theory proposes that the cause of space, time, and number was an event that they conceive of in terms of space, time, and number.
Here’s another way the historical fallacy could be worded:

The historical fallacy is committed when a proposed cause of something has in it the thing it is proposed to be the cause of.
?Take Freud’s explanation for complexes. It’s the Oedipal complex. The cause of complexes is a complex.
?Or take M. Scott Peck’s conception of the cause of evil. It’s caused by something called “evil.”
?Or take a popular notion of how life on Earth originated. It was brought here by aliens. The explanation for Earthly life forms is another life form.
?The ancient explanation of where people came from was they were created by gods, who of course were simply bigger people.
?Plato’s idea of forms was that shapes like triangles and horses in our experience were possible due to an ideal archetype triangle and horse in the invisible form world.
?Materialism is the view that we can explain the cause of stuff we see by postulating another stuff we can’t see that is analogous to it. So the cause of stuff is another stuff, imagined to be pretty much exactly like the stuff it causes that you can see, except you can’t see it.

The importance of understanding the historical fallacy is that when people commit it while forming an hypothesis to explain something, they wind up no closer to an explanation. In fact, they wind up with more to explain than they began with - as they wind up with the explanatory same thing (on top of the one being explained) to explain. This is one of the main complaints agnostics raise when objecting to simplistic concepts of God. “But who made God?” Yet this mistake is far and away more pervasive than anyone has recognized thus far. As pointed out above, it is as much in materialism and Freud’s atheism as it is in primitive theism.”

-Christopher Ott

https://sites.google.com/site/ottsessays/the-historical-fallacy

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed