the reason I fear the God of the bible: science

reply to post by TruthParadox

Nope, that's not what I 'propose'... It's very annoying arguing with you because you aren't even hearing what I'm saying... I said in my last post that it's more than probable that the people spreading the story were not 'con artists'. Remember the children's game "telephone"? It would have worked much like that, as all fables do.
Person 1) "Did you hear about that guy named Jesus? I heard he might have been the Messiah."
Person 2) "I hear there's a man named Jesus who's the Messiah and was performing miracles..."
Person 3) "Jesus the Christ (the Messiah) has been performing miracles. I even hear that he turned water into wine."

Now, you are probably going to regret that in the morning. You are comparing the Bible, the Holy book of the living God, to a child's book/game. You'll try anything to see if it sticks; but keep looking, it's good to be immersed in things of God no matter what route you take; you'll get there eventually. Your soul is seeking something that your mind may not accept right now.

In spite of your refusal to accept the truth, I believe a voice speaks to you and tells you there is something to this; in fact I am sure of it, I am sure that while a person still lives, God is trying to find a way in.

Originally posted by Bombeni

But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.

nope just very suprised you actually know that

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by Bombeni

But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.

nope just very suprised you actually know that

Who did you think I would think they were?

For someone who doesn't believe in something you sure spend a lot of time on it. There is more to that than meets the eye.

As a general rule, people at ATS gravitate towards subjects they are interested in, if you get my drift.

Originally posted by Bombeni
Now, you are probably going to regret that in the morning. You are comparing the Bible, the Holy book of the living God, to a child's book/game. You'll try anything to see if it sticks;

Wrong again.
I am showing that the Bible is not immune to human fallacies. There is proof of that, no matter how much you plug your ears and say there isn't.
I am not 'trying anything' as you suggest... The gospels which were left out of your Bible diverged so much that it was apparent that it was a fable. The 4 books you now have do not diverge as much, but they still have several inconsistencies.
You asked several questions such as "why would so many people be in on a huge conspiracy to write the Bible over hundreds of years".
I answered your questions and showed that your assumption was wrong and completely biased.
Now instead of seeing that those answers make sense, you move on to the next attack, which isn't even close to logical...

Originally posted by Bombeni
but keep looking, it's good to be immersed in things of God no matter what route you take; you'll get there eventually. Your soul is seeking something that your mind may not accept right now.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose.

Originally posted by Bombeni
In spite of your refusal to accept the truth, I believe a voice speaks to you and tells you there is something to this; in fact I am sure of it, I am sure that while a person still lives, God is trying to find a way in.

That little voice disappears once you make a decision to base your beliefs on logic and not assumption - on proof and not faulty words.

Ok......Here's a different angle.

Christians believe God put us here, atheists do not believe in God..so how did we get here ?

Atheist's will tell you through a mixture of chemicals that formed the first cell millions of years ago, then evolution took over.

Prove it ! Prove that we came from a single cell. You can't.

Atheist's say they do not believe in God/Jesus because there is no evidence or proof.
Where is your evidence proving we came from mixture of chemicals millions of years ago. I'm not interested in theories, I need proof.

Dawkins even admitted life may not have originated from chance chemicals and evolution.
He now thinks life may have originated from "intelligent design".

Rather than believeing in ET, I'll stay with Jesus

reply to post by noobfun


" you forgot world peace and returning ALL the jews to israel

for a messiah he doesnt do a very good job "


You sir are confused!

I give credit to the media for propagating lies.

The "jews" as you refer to were NOT the only tribe in israel! There were 11 more!

Do you wish to understand?

Originally posted by Bombeni
Who did you think I would think they were?

i didnt even think about it so cant answer sorry

For someone who doesn't believe in something you sure spend a lot of time on it. There is more to that than meets the eye.

yes an interest and lots of time spent studying NLP and behaviour psychology, its the people that intrest me

Originally posted by Annon Omas
Ok......Here's a different angle.

Christians believe God put us here,

Prove it ! Prove that we came from god. You can't.

and i mean real proof not theories

Where is your evidence proving we came from mixture of chemicals millions of years ago. I'm not interested in theories, I need proof.

lots of abiogensesis research that is building up conclusive results where they have observed many of the basic amino acids build them selves they have also formed adonine by the same method(observed proof)

we aint there yet but we still have more proof then any religeon

Dawkins even admitted life may not have originated from chance chemicals and evolution.
He now thinks life may have originated from "intelligent design".

ummmm no its not random chance for either of them, the fact you think they are random chance tells me you havnt actually looked at it

your refering to a quote mine, you know when you pick a few words out of a larger work and present them in a way that says the entire opposite of what was said, your refering to the we may have come from aliens quote mine arnt you? where he then said "and where did they aliens come from? well the only answer to that is evolution really isnt it"

Rather than believeing in ET, I'll stay with Jesus

well theres no proof(remeber that stuff your insisting about) for either really, but probability is a different matter, that says theres almost certainly life out there the probabiloity of a divine being though is no where near as good odds

Originally posted by toasted

You sir are confused!

no not really there were 12 tribes that all followed the jewish abrahamic god, those tribes are now collective covered under the term jew so when the bible says he will return all the children of isreal it means in modern terms all the jews

christianity isnt a tribe of israel,

Do you wish to understand?

do you?

Originally posted by noobfun

Prove it ! Prove that we came from god. You can't. and i mean real proof not theories

I asked you first

lots of abiogensesis research that is building up conclusive results where they have observed many of the basic amino acids build them selves they have also formed adonine by the same method(observed proof)

This is a theory

we aint there yet but we still have more proof then any religeon

So to believe in evolution you must have faith, because there is no absolute proof.

ummmm no its its not random chance for either of them, the fact you think they are random chance tells me you havnt actually looked at it

If its not by chance, are you suggesting someone or something guided all the random chemicals to be at specific place, time and temperature to create the primordial ooze.

Do you disagree with Dawkins about life coming from "intelligent design" ?

your refering to a quote mine, you know when you pick a few words out of a larger work and present them in a way that says the entire opposite of what was said, your refering to the we may have come from aliens quote mine arnt you? where he then said "and where did they aliens come from? well the only answer to that is evolution really isnt it"

No, actually, I got the ET thing from the Dawkins article. That is what he suggested.
No proof of aliens either, so how could they evolve

well theres no proof(remeber that stuff your insisting about) for either really, but probability is a different matter, that says theres almost certainly life out there the probabiloity of a divine being though is no where near as good odds

So we could agree, we both need faith(because there is no proof)

Originally posted by Annon Omas

I asked you first

actually you will find i often ask for even the tiniest shred of evidence

but here you go astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov... this is just them reanalysing a 50 yearold experiemnt with our better technology which show he had much better results then he thought 50 years ago

this doesnt even cover the many newer and on going research bieng undertaken

observed instances of amino acids and one of the 4 key componenets for rna and dna self assembling, other tests carried out have created other amino acids too

all this from organic elements that self assemble into more complex molecules with out any help (again observed)

so wheres your evidence of god? and the bible doesnt count unless you can conclusivley prove it hasnt been messed with and altered by man and is 100% exact in every detail, and no personal experience wont do

This is a theory

no its a hypothesis(abiogenesis) it hasnt been conclusivley proven which would make it a sceintific theory, and still more proof then you can supply for god

(do me a favour have a read of this before you say its only a theory, im talking scientific theory not the everday sense of the word wilstar.com... scinetific theory is a far different beast then the way(general usage) your using the term theory)

So to believe in evolution you must have faith, because there is no absolute proof.

umm this isnt evolution were talking about its abiogenesis and you dont need absolute proof, faith is belief without or againt the evidence, while abiogenesis hasnt been 100% proven its still around 60-70% proven so no faith needed just acceptance of that 70%

evolution has been proven conclusivley enough for it to be accepted not taken on faith and as science always loves to prove things even further the evidence is still be found, maybe learn the actual theory then look at the evidence and youll see it too, no faith allowed or required just good old study understanding and acceptance of the evidence

If its not by chance, are you suggesting someone or something guided all the random chemicals to be at specific place, time and temperature to create the primordial ooze.

no not at all

no need for a guiding hand and no need for chance, they were all found in our atmosphere, its like theres no randomness in the creation of ozone in the atmosphere or hydrogen sulfide

its a natural actions taking place, they happen not by random but becasue conditions say they should

hell they dont even need the correct temperature or atmosphere, organic compounds are found in space where they formed

Do you disagree with Dawkins about life coming from "intelligent design" ?

well as he doesnt say it does then i dont need to disagree with him

remember its a quote mine and when he was pushed on the possability of aliens seeding earth so ID might be right, he played along and then showed just how flawed ID thinking is, if theres a designer there needs to be a more complex designer for him

so if you think aliens did it who designed the aliens?

if you think god did it who designed god?

'just there' isnt a satisfactory answer its a copout

dawkins as does most of the world agree evolution is the number 1 leading cause of diversity

No, actually, I got the ET thing from the Dawkins article. That is what he suggested.
No proof of aliens either, so how could they evolve

they couldnt if they dont exist, but they are more probabile to exist then god is

id like a link to that article please, your refering to comments taken well out of context and quote mined as found in ben steins expelled or misreading them

shall we ask what he thinks about this subject?



listen to the words, even if bacteria were seeded by aliens we are still the result of evolution and the aliens that did it would have had to have evolved as well

he isnt saying its proven he is saying its possable (but very unlikley) but evolution is still the driving factor for us and the seeders

So we could agree, we both need faith(because there is no proof)

well theres more then enough evidence to raise evolution to scientific theory so no faith required, and as abiogenesis is the most likley casue of life arising i still dont need faith as it has a dossier of building supportive evidence

i can just look at the several different possible hypothesis(of abiogenesis) and go with the one thats most probable, and if its shown to be wrong i can then re-evaluate the new evidence

see no faith, no belief without evidence or inspite of, and no refusing to aknowledge evidence as it goes against what i think is currently the most likley hypothesis

best solution on the evidence posible and subject to change as better evidence is found, thats understanding and acceptance not faith

so we can agree you have and require faith, while i work on available evidence and probability

[edit on 17/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 17/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 17/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 17/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by Bombeni

But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.

nope just very suprised you actually know that

Noobfun do you wonder why I have inquired about your age? Your hateful attempts at embarrasing me into no longer posting is getting old. This isn't the first time. People in glass houses should not throw stones, don't you know that? Before you start using lowball tactics, you should be sure you are beyond reproach.

Regarding the word Pharisee, and your surprise I knew what it meant, well you aren't half as surprised as I am that you can spell it. A little copy-and-paste going on huh? Would you like to have your posts critiqued for a complete lack of knowledge of proper sentence structure, spelling, and punctuation usage? I didn't think so. Grow up.

Originally posted by Bombeni
Noobfun do you wonder why I have inquired about your age? Your hateful attempts at embarrasing me into no longer posting is getting old.

do unto others as others have done unto you

maybe if you cut the sly insults and numerous attempts to imply atheists are immoral and have nothing to offer the world that litter your posts maybe i might follow suit with comments in kind

This isn't the first time. People in glass houses should not throw stones, don't you know that? Before you start using lowball tactics, you should be sure you are beyond reproach.

you really should shouldnt you

Regarding the word Pharisee, and your surprise I knew what it meant, well you aren't half as surprised as I am that you can spell it.

sorry no typo or spelling mistake, i used the plural term i could have dropped the s but didnt have to so didnt

grow up? awww whats up worried by someone who enjoys the conversations? critique away if the best you have is playing the grammer nazi card and ignoring whats actually written by the other person (numerous times) then i still wont worry and will just type off the cuff and poke holes in weak arguments

havn't you noticed the trend here? you accuse me or us of doing somthing and then i point out where you have already done it, im just returning the lowball stunts and pointing out the hypocracy

reply to post by noobfun

maybe if you cut the sly insults and numerous attempts to imply atheists are immoral and have nothing to offer the world that litter your posts maybe i might follow suit with comments in kind

The above statement is untrue.

I'm not going to get into a mudsling fest with you. I merely politely asked you to stop with the childish tactics, of picking at things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the messages. I see you can dish it out but don't like to take it.

You make statements that are simply untrue, "numerous attempts" huh? You know that is a complete lie. The one time I said atheists add nothing, I was merely parroting what you or truthparadox had said, in fun. The other time, I used the term "lack of moral guidelines" or something like that, then quickly retracted it, and admitted it was not necessary to say. I have a good idea that is something you are not big enough to do, retract the hateful rude things you say, and they are too numerous to list. The two or three things I said don't hold a candle to the incessantly rude, hateful things you say about Christians. I am at the point of not wanting to debate with you anymore. Can you find another atheist who can remain civil, to take your place?

Let me add that if you have a good knowledge of the Bible, even better than me, I think that is wonderful, seriously. At least as an atheist, you are not just laying your shovel down, you continue to explore the God issue; that's proof that you have not given up on the idea, as much as you'd like us to believe that you have.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Bombeni]

reply to post by noobfun



I knew you were confused;

" those tribes are now collective covered under the term jew "

Congratulations for buying into the BIG LIE! [ the puppet media at work ]

Saying that all of israel are jews is like saying all Christians are catholics!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by noobfun

 

The above statement is untrue.

I'm not going to get into a mudsling fest with you. I merely politely asked you to stop with the childish tactics, of picking at things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the messages. I see you can dish it out but don't like to take it.

shall i go find a bunch of them? wont take long

the mudslinging is going on both ways, but while you call mine childish you ignore your own

the more you chose to call names the funnier it becomes, becasue if im mirroring your actions and words every insult to me is an insult to your self

thats why i can happily sit here and both give and recieve

You make statements that are simply untrue, "numerous attempts" huh? You know that is a complete lie.

I mean, she is the only athiest I have ever seen in "real life" --- lol. Everyone else is too ashamed to show their face I guess.

,multipul of these and attempts to tie it to all athiests bieng ugly

But what is in it for an athiest? I have been wondering about this for some time now, and what comes to mind is the old saying "there's safety in numbers."

another of your several atheists are scared of god

What they offer is hopelessness. Who does that help?

like this one

and when he said it doesnt offer dogma and false belief you said

Let me sum it up with this: you said athiests offer nothing, and I heartily agree!

so he didnt say that even jokingly you distorted its meaning so you could set off an athiests are pointless diatribe

.....so i guess the lie is that im lieing

I have a good idea that is something you are not big enough to do, retract the hateful rude things you say, and they are too numerous to list.

please feel free to go find them, and we shall examine them

lets not play in generalisations

The two or three things I said don't hold a candle to the incessantly rude, hateful things you say about Christians.

please feel free to go find them?

well as youve tried to show athiests as pointless ugly scared closed minded ....

we shall play compare

I am at the point of not wanting to debate with you anymore. Can you find another atheist who can remain civil, to take your place?p

can you find a civil christian to replace you?

remeber im mirroring here, refelct back what you put out

Let me add that if you have a good knowledge of the Bible, even better than me, I think that is wonderful, seriously. At least as an atheist, you are not just laying your shovel down, you continue to explore the God issue; that's proof that you have not given up on the idea, as much as you'd like us to believe that you have.

and yet another of your many

athiests really want to be christians comments

the probability of god is very very slim and theres no ecidence, why do i still explore becasue the human mind facinates me its ability to misinterpret and ignore at will to hold to a belief

im here not to find god, but to ask for the evidence you insist exists, to ask the questions your afraid to ask yourself

what i understand and in some cases could be classed as a belief have been rigourously questioned by me and others, i didnt see it as hateful or hurtful becasue i understand by holding them out there and subjecting them to a baptism of questioning and fire strip away the false hoods

i dont see it as hateful i see it as helpful, they help me temper my understandings and convictions they help me strip away the unreality to leave only the useful and workable, and i return the favour even if they dont see it as such

it not hateful or fearful of them to do it, i thank them for thier help in stripping away the junk to leave whats real i challenge my beliefes everday on here by talking about religeon and beleif and read what they say not completley over look it and seek out denial and misrepresentation to allow me to carry on with them



actually watch it and think about it i dare ya

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by noobfun

 

I knew you were confused;

" those tribes are now collective covered under the term jew "

Congratulations for buying into the BIG LIE! [ the puppet media at work ]

Saying that all of israel are jews is like saying all Christians are catholics!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.

i congratulate you on talking twaddle on misrepresenting the words used, on misrepresenting the meaning theose words convey

the 12 tribes of the hebrews are all jewistic in origins

no lie needed to buy, the 12 tribes of the hebrews (as god declread them the children of isreal) were followers of what we now call the jewish faith

they all worshipped the abrahamic god, they all (allegedly) left egypt for the promised land, as the prophecy states he will return the chilkdren of israel to thier home ... he didnt

care to tell me where im confused?

care to show where i said all of isreal are jews?

i said the children of isreal as described by the bible are now collectively refered to as jews, not that everyone in israel is a jew

the only confusion here is in misrepresentation

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun

this is just them reanalysing a 50 yearold experiemnt with our better technology which show he had much better results then he thought 50 years ago

I assume your talking about Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's expriments. Even Miller said "making compounds and making life are two different things."
www.evolutionnews.org...
This is not proof.

this doesnt even cover the many newer and on going research bieng undertaken

Research yes, proof no

observed instances of amino acids and one of the 4 key componenets for rna and dna self assembling, other tests carried out have created other amino acids too all this from organic elements that self assemble into more complex molecules with out any help (again observed)

I'll use Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things" - not proof of anything really

so wheres your evidence of god? and the bible doesnt count unless you can conclusivley prove it hasnt been messed with and altered by man and is 100% exact in every detail, and no personal experience wont do

I am not trying to prove God's existence

no its a hypothesis(abiogenesis) it hasnt been conclusivley proven which would make it a sceintific theory, and still more proof then you can supply for god (do me a favour have a read of this before you say its only a theory, im talking scientific theory not the everday sense of the word wilstar.com... scinetific theory is a far different beast then the way(general usage) your using the term theory)

You were right the first time, its a hypothesis, it hasn't been proven

umm this isnt evolution were talking about its abiogenesis and you dont need absolute proof, faith is belief without or againt the evidence, while abiogenesis hasnt been 100% proven its still around 60-70% proven so no faith needed just acceptance of that 70%

Of course its 60 -70 percent proven, they've done the easy stuff,making the monomers,making the first self-replicating polymers etc.
The next step of how to get those molecules to turn into self-replicating organic compounds is the hangup.
Remember Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things."

evolution has been proven conclusivley enough for it to be accepted not taken on faith and as science always loves to prove things even further the evidence is still be found, maybe learn the actual theory then look at the evidence and youll see it too, no faith allowed or required just good old study understanding and acceptance of the evidence

No argument with evolution of existing species

no need for a guiding hand and no need for chance, they were all found in our atmosphere, its like theres no randomness in the creation of ozone in the atmosphere or hydrogen sulfide its a natural actions taking place, they happen not by random but becasue conditions say they should

ok.......then the conditions were random. (infinite regress)

hell they dont even need the correct temperature or atmosphere, organic compounds are found in space where they formed

So you are saying atmosphere doesn't matter ? Then why all the experiments with ammonia and methane ?

well as he doesnt say it does then i dont need to disagree with him

Not what this article says, here's your link townhall.com...

Yes, I do indeed have faith, and while you do not, I respect your search for the truth.
I hope you find it

Originally posted by Annon Omas

I assume your talking about Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's expriments. Even Miller said "making compounds and making life are two different things."
www.evolutionnews.org...
This is not proof.

ahh but it is its partial not conlusive but still partial and sooner or later all that partial adds up to become beyond reasonable dought and then undeniable

and even the reevalutaion of his experiments by modern means show he did a whole lot he didnt even know about, he was soo much closer then he thought he was

shall we take a look at newer work?

This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Szostak's LAB!!

It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start.

you see how they all start to add up, and some proof is always a better position then no proof wouldnt you agree?

shall we ask another guy with a pdh in a different branch of biology?

Research yes, proof no

but the findings of the research are proof, a little goal post moving?

I'll use Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things" - not proof of anything really

ahh but we have moved on since then and the pile of evidence is building fast

bieng mostly or partially right is always better then be absolutley wrong

I am not trying to prove God's existence

well you said i asked first

i answered and still am

so now its your turn

You were right the first time, its a hypothesis, it hasn't been proven

what abiogenesis? i know its partially proven but not enough to make the transition but the evidence is there and building fast, its well on the way to theory status, and its full of proven hypothesies part proven and as yet unproven hypothesies that help push it further towards theory

the proven hypothesis are evidence
the partially proven hypothesies are still partially evidence
the unproven hypothesies will become proven or tossed away for bieng wrong

Of course its 60 -70 percent proven, they've done the easy stuff,making the monomers,making the first self-replicating polymers etc.
The next step of how to get those molecules to turn into self-replicating organic compounds is the hangup.
Remember Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things."

they already are organic compounds

elemensts form organic compunds producing organic molecules that form organic self replicating polymers

shall we compare to the 7 deffining characteristics of life and see how Dr Szostak stands up to it?

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells very basic but yes

2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization different parts play different functions so yes

3. Living Things Use Energy yes they eat each other

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment infact it uses the enviroment to help it multiply and recharge monomers using the enviuroment

5. Living Things Grow thats shown too

6. Living Things Reproduce yes and this

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment changing lipids to stop them escaping is adapting to the enviroment eating the competition to fuel your self is adapting to the enviroment

they have observed life in its earliest possible form it follows all the basic charachteristics of life, its not very complex but thats exactly what we would expect

theres still much to understand how it went from polymers to rna and dna but were on the right tack and closing the distance

remember 70% right is still 70% accurate 70% correct 70% proven

nothing in science is 100% proven not even gravity becasue theres always more tests you can do more observations you can make, better tests to test it with to invent

science would be so dull if they did a little testing called it conclusive and closed the book

the day science proves everything 100% conclusivley is the day it becomes an unchanging unthinking religeon that doesnt even require faith .. it just wont be fun anymore

ok.......then the conditions were random. (infinite regress)

no the conditions vary so widely theres no need for random, organic molecules form in space and in water and in test tubes and pretty much anywhere else

no infinite digress

they form becasue of chemical reactions, and if all the parts arnt around at the time they dont stop existing, they take the reaction as far as can go then sit around waiting they may never go beyond that but as they are forming form things found in abundance in the enviroment they are in

its not random its inevitable

So you are saying atmosphere doesn't matter ? Then why all the experiments with ammonia and methane ?

becasue those were the conditions found on earth at the time, were trying to understand how they formed on earth after all

they form in space so no atmosphere required

but we had one so thats why we test it

Not what this article says, here's your link townhall.com...

Yes, I do indeed have faith, and while you do not, I respect your search for the truth.
I hope you find it

see i preempted the ben stein thing .... it a quote mine they cut out the bit that gave it its meaning and context, also note how they insist on inevitable chemical reactions to purely random, and evolution of things as purley random when they are anything but random

The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?

from that article

So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being.

richarddawkins.net...

in his own words, apparently he isnt as hot on the idea as stein and co wanted to portray



[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun



Mmm, no my time is worth more than spending it copying and pasting the hate-filled posts you fill page after page with. Anyone interested in reading them can scan for themselves, if they are able to even decipher them. That's no easy task.

While you are reading the Bible, try using it as a grammar tool. Pay attention to the spelling and punctuation. The Bible would be a great book to use to improve your writing skills. And listen, the old rule "i before e except after c" is a fallacy. It only applies to a handful of words.



[edit on 18-12-2008 by Bombeni]