Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Galileo

  That being the case, it is a guess (in the form of a strong assertion on both sides). Both sides may assert their faith, but it shouldn't be covered as a "scientific theory". Neither of the theories are scientific.
  
  Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection are facts. Spontaneous generation is a religion.

  No credible scientist has believed in spontaneous generation since Pasteur. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, and there are several credible scientific theories, not guesses, about how this occurred.
• 

  SPAZnik

  Sorry haven't had time to read the whole thread, just the initial post. Scientologists are also rumoured to believe in alien theory.
• 

  AuldSoul

  The only forms of life that we scientifically acknowledge to be life are carbon-based. We know many of the rules and limitations pertaining to carbon-based life. This form of life cannot spontaneously arise from nothing.

  We attempt to assert this rule for carbon-based life onto all other potential kinds of life when we suggest that God must have come from somewhere in order to be alive. To impose such constraint on other kinds of life would be an example of extreme bias, and is unreasonable in the extreme.

  We further complicate matters by suggesting that carbon-based life must have come from nothing, because we are here; assuming that abiogenesis (1) must have occurred on earth or (2) might as well have occurred on earth, because it either occurred on our planet with its environmental contraints or on some other planet with different constraints.

  Why can science not admit that there may well be intelligent life that is not carbon-based; i.e. life that is not limited to the rules governing carbon-based life?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  SPAZnik: Sorry haven't had time to read the whole thread, just the initial post. Scientologists are also rumoured to believe in alien theory.

  Everyone who subscribes to what the Bible teaches is a believer in life originating from extraterrestrial sources. Such believers also believe that there are forms of intelligent life which are not carbon-based and that these life forms have interacted with humans in the past, sometimes with centuries intervening, and that these life forms will do so again. Most of them believe these life forms are currently interacting with a large number of humans right now.

  "Alien theory" is, by far, the prevailing theory of how life arose on earth. This theory is heartily endorsed by the doctrine of all Christendom, Judaism, Hinduism (with the exception of Samkhya), and Islam.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  LayingLow

  When I said spontaneous generation I meant it not in the pre-Pasteur sense (flies from mud). I apologize for that terminology. I meant it in the abiogenesis sense (life from non-life). I view abiogenesis as something seperate from evolution. I may have worded my post wrong if that is the confusion I caused you.
• 

  Gopher

  Why can science not admit that there may well be intelligent life that is not carbon-based; i.e. life that is not limited to the rules governing carbon-based life?

  Gee AuldSoul, who is this "science" you're referring to? Science is a lot of study leading to conclusions based on actual observation. What proof is there for non-carbon-based life in the universe? Has this been observed, or have the tracks of such life forms been found? If you start to "admit" all sorts of speculations based on wishes (that there is a God) rather than on observations, you don't have science any more. You have philosophy, and a set of unprovable beliefs. That's the realm of religion and not science.
• 

  Caedes

  Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, and there are several credible scientific theories, not guesses, about how this occurred

  There are hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, there are no theories. Eventually one of these hypotheses will make it to the status of theory but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

  Auld-soul, there is a reason that we assume that life would be carbon based, carbon makes bonds with other molecules more readily than anything else. Silicon also readily bonds but not to the same degree as carbon. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that carbon is a common building block of life throughout the universe due to the fact that it is so common.

  Anyway, the observable background radiation from this event is damning evidence against a self existing, spaghetti monster producing universe.

  Perry,

  Perhaps you would care to explain to everyone why this argument works against flying spaghetti monsters but not against your own brand of god?
• 

  funkyderek

  A response from Professor Dawkins on this very subject:

  http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins
• 

  AuldSoul

  Caedes: Auld-soul, there is a reason that we assume that life would be carbon based, carbon makes bonds with other molecules more readily than anything else. Silicon also readily bonds but not to the same degree as carbon. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that carbon is a common building block of life throughout the universe due to the fact that it is so common.

  I was not suggesting that all life had to be molecular. Why is it reasonable to assume that all life must be, exactly?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Caedes

  I was not suggesting that all life had to be molecular. Why is it reasonable to assume that all life must be, exactly?

  It is reasonable for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Carbon is in plentiful supply throughout the universe and readily makes bonds with many other molecules. These are useful attributes for the evolution of complex life. I am not stating that it is not possible for life to be be based on other elements.

  If you are suggesting complex life that is not made up of elements from the periodic table then I suppose you must be in the realms of science fiction and I have no answer for you. I am merely stating the reason for the supposition that all life is likely to be carbon based, you asked why it is presumed that life is carbon based and I answered you.