... that you are misrepresenting what was said, of course. I saw the movie!
Ok, so maybe God created the Universe, and had a hand in creating the first lifeform, then He used Evolution to create all the life we have today.
And Stein was cool as a cuke.
Stein was lucky (or was it arranged by a Higher Power) that he got Dawkins on a bad day.
If all the other scientists will concede that it’s possible that life on earth was designed and brought here by advanced aliens, will the arguments that scientists won’t give ID any consideration stop?
This was my “jaw dropping” moment in the movie. Dawkins the chief evolutionist admits that maybe life on earth came from aliens. Seeing this is worth the price of admission. SEE THIS MOVIE.
So Dawkins and Crick do not believe in G.O.D. but they do believe in Xenu?
Talk to the monolith.
You know... the aliens that there is absolutely zero proof of..
Dawkins is about as sharp as a bowling ball- Foghorn Leghorn..
It would be like Alan Keyes arguing Christianity with Fred Phelps.....Keyes would rip him a new one.
Since when is 1 BILLION years considered quick?
Here's my point of view. I'll go ahead an add the disclaimer that I'm an atheist. (But unlike typical atheists like Dawkins, I have no problem with people who believe in a religion. Everyone has their own way of dealing with the stresses of life, and religion seems to work well for the majority of people, just not me. To each his own.)
There seem to be two major camps in the intelligent design or creationist crowd. One claims that everything came developed the way that science has hypothesized, but it was started by God. Of course, since God is all knowing, he knew full well what the end result would be. I've always heard these people called Old Earth Creationists (OEC.) The other claims that everything was created exactly as described in the bible, about 6000 years ago. This camp would be the Young Earth Creationists, or YEC.
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with the OEC point of view. I may differ with them on our beliefs of how it all started, but we seem to agree on what happened after that initial spark.
On the other hand, there are the YECs. I cannot even begin to fathom how they believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. After a significant amount of research, I think I've figured out the problem. The idea that the Earth is very young is refuted over and over by carbon dating. Yet the YECs seem to deny this. The only argument I've EVER heard from the YEC side is that carbon dating doesn't exist. They don't provide any evidence, not even a basic attempt at a thought experiment. They simply state that it doesn't exist. I once watched a three and a half hour video of a lecture given by a YEC, and he spent about 7 words on this major flaw in his argument. All he said was, "And carbon dating, well, that doesn't exist."
Until someone can show me even a scrap of evidence that carbon dating is false, I will never understand the Young Earth Creationist point of view.
PS. About the whole alien thing. As others have pointed out, this theory suffers one major flaw: where did the aliens come from? Sure, there might be a very small chance that life on Earth was placed here by aliens, but that seems a little far fetched to me. And of course it still doesn't answer the question of how life comes into being from non-life, which is the major question that everyone is trying to answer.
I get to stop reading right there with the bringing out of the big atheist boogeyman. What will follow will inevitably be crap.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, “How did life begin? .... Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. “
So what if Dawkins has no idea? Does that make him dishonest? Why should Dawkins be reluctant to “admit” that he has no idea of how life began. Dawkins is a scientist. Science by definition only accepts evidence that can be observed by the senses. So speaking as a scientist, Dawkins does not believe that there is sufficient “sensible” evidence for the biblical creation story or for the “intelligent alien” theory to form a compelling scientific explanation for the introducion of life on this planet, even though he may be “forced to admit “ the possibility that this is what occurred.
The scientific method has saved humanity from starvation, has brought prosperity to the many and has allowed ordinary people to travel the world in almost perfect safety, and is on the verge of curing cancer. But due to political chicanery, science of late has been deemphasized in our schools. I’m all for religious discussion in schools. But it is anti-educational when a faith based theory is presented to kids in the guise of a “science.”
the mystery is ended.
life was created by the first brilliant, all-knowing, light-giving, insightful, liberal, as he always existed. he decided to create the human animals around him and manipulate time so that it seems as if his animal creations were based upon evolution over “billions of years”.
if you ask liberals in congress, they will admit to being superior beings and quite capable of performing miracles.
they do have all the answers dontcha know.
Who created the E.T.s?
D’Souza’s book, “What’s So Great About Christianity?” is a very good read.
"Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? "
It means that atheist Darwinians can still fornicate or masturbate without moral anxiety if there is a lizard god from outer space. And that they are comfortable with the idea of ET Reptilian ancestry a la the Nephalim, minus the Judaeo-Christian the Bible.
Let's call this the ancient astronaut ID hypothesis. Maybe there's a sequel there - the esoteric, New Age, and ET theories of crackpot Darwinian atheists.