davidylan:

How is it a possibility? This is just ridiculous.

How stoopid of you. You have nothing. So it is now impossible? Close minded fool


You would have to prove that it is impossible since Dawkins has explained that we know life comes from life. We could have come from an even earlier life form. We dont know and are open to speculation that we came from extrterrestial life. What rational people dont do is believe it as fact because it is only a hyppothesis or educated guess. We dont lie that we can prove it.



So, you have nothing as usual

Logicboy03:

How stoopid of you. You have nothing. So it is now impossible? Close minded fool


You would have to prove that it is impossible since Dawkins has explained that we know life comes from life. We could have come from an even earlier life form. We dont know and are open to speculation that we came from extrterrestial life. What rational people dont do is believe it as fact because it is only a hyppothesis or educated guess. We dont lie that we can prove it.



So, you have nothing as usual

The atheist is a funny individual. He wants me to prove that God exists and also wants me to prove that his illogical speculations on alternative ways life could have appeared on earth is also possible. So what burden of proof does the atheist take responsibility for?

Dawkins didnt "explain" anything, he only speculated about a clearly irrational point of view that he would have roundly disparaged had God put it in His bible. Its funny how the atheist laughs at alleged "myths" in the bible while wrapping himself in uneducated hypothesis. Oh by the way directed panspermia is not an "educated guess"... it is the kind of fantasy that kids hooked on star wars dream about.

Says a person who will later claim atheist are close minded. A scientist that supposedly understands how critical thinking works

1 percent..atheist prophets...bald men with hair cuts

wiegraf: Says a person who will later claim atheist are close minded. A scientist that supposedly understands how critical thinking works

1 percent..atheist prophets...bald men with hair cuts

I suppose you took a statistics course at least once in your life right... and you do know that a probability of 1 is NOT the same as 0.9 right?

davidylan:

The atheist is a funny individual. He wants me to prove that God exists and also wants me to prove that his illogical speculations on alternative ways life could have appeared on earth is also possible. So what burden of proof does the atheist take responsibility for?

Dawkins didnt "explain" anything, he only speculated about a clearly irrational point of view that he would have roundly disparaged had God put it in His bible. Its funny how the atheist laughs at alleged "myths" in the bible while wrapping himself in uneducated hypothesis. Oh by the way directed panspermia is not an "educated guess"... it is the kind of fantasy that kids hooked on star wars dream about.

You made a claim and I said that you should prove it.


Dawkins said that there is a possibility of another civilization who seeded life on earth. Could be aliens, could be something else. He was clearly making a speculation not claiming a fact. He explained his reasons for that speculation.


You were trying to imply that it is ridiculous and impossible. If you cant back up your statement, then shut up.

Logicboy03:


You made a claim and I said that you should prove it.


Dawkins said that there is a possibility of another civilization who seeded life on earth. Could be aliens, could be something else. He was clearly making a speculation not claiming a fact. He explained his reasons for that speculation.


You were trying to imply that it is ridiculous and impossible. If you cant back up your statement, then shut up.

the fact that he would even make such a patently ridiculous speculation is the problem... particularly if you are busy howling at others believing in myths. Like i always say, it takes more faith to believe in the sort of myths Dawkins wallows in than to simply believe in God.

Oh and just to add... where did Dawkins "explain his reasons" for directed panspermia? What was his point? That somehow if we build bigger rockets we can find the life that seeded the earth on one of millions of galaxies out there? Both of u are unserious.

davidylan:

the fact that he would even make such a patently ridiculous speculation is the problem... particularly if you are busy howling at others believing in myths. Like i always say, it takes more faith to believe in the sort of myths Dawkins wallows in than to simply believe in God.

Oh and just to add... where did Dawkins "explain his reasons" for directed panspermia? What was his point? That somehow if we build bigger rockets we can find the life that seeded the earth on one of millions of galaxies out there? Both of u are unserious.

Why are you playing stoopid?


We know current life comes from other lifeforms. Why is it then ridiculous to speculate that past life forms on earth could have come from other life forms outside earth but in our universe? Afterall, the origin of earth is from the expansion of space itself.



So why is it a ridiculous speculaition? Why is it so impossible?



Yet, it is not ridiculous for people to believe that a being (God) who is spaceless and timeless, exists. The very nature of matter, space and time define existence.




You are stoopid and a disgusting disgrace to rational people and the field of science that you claim t be a part of. Fool

davidylan:

I suppose you took a statistics course at least once in your life right... and you do know that a probability of 1 is NOT the same as 0.9 right?

Aaaaannnnddddd how does that detract from my point? Doesn't that actually help your case? And you also notice how everyone else has been using 1 rather 0.1, hmm? Maybe even you yourself, if I bother to check.

Enigma:

Rubbish! "Freethinkers" my leg! That is why atheists' thinking is shaped by prats like Harris, loonies like Barker (appropriate name) and dunces like Dawkins.

Look, evangelical atheists now clearly have doctrines and an evangelical atheist who departs from the line is warned to beware of 'heresy'. I don't even need to go outside Nairaland for an example. Just one example follows where a normally brash evangelical atheist quickly fell in line when warned by another evangelical atheist that what he said is not "the default atheist position" i.e. what he said is heterodoxical or heretical. See here https://www.nairaland.com/999529/paul-kokoski-new-atheism-enigmas/2#11578089

In fact it is so bad for the evangelical atheist religionists that when someone renounces atheism they brand him an apostate guilty of apostasy ----- just as with other religions. A clear example is what happened to them when Antony Flew renounced atheism. For most of the 20th century Flew was the atheist's chief and foremost apostle --- even senior to the mumu Dawkins. When Flew renounced atheism and turned to Deism/Theism, some of the evangelical atheists went into apoplexy. Dawkins accused Flew of "Apostasy" but disguised it in a big word -- 'tergiversation'. Look in the dictionary and see that the word is just a fancy or pompous way of saying ------ apostasy.

Evangelical atheists are the dumbest sheeple there is ---- blind being led by the blind. Mumu followers of fools calling themselves "freethinkers". Yeah right.

I'm really eager to see the _evangelical theists!

Logicboy03:



How foolish. Dawkins clearly states that it is a possibility not a fact. You have nothing and now, you are trying to put words into Dawkins mouth as if he said it was a fact?

You have lost the argument. Go home and be a family man.

yeah,right i believe in panspermia being able to seed earth with life just the way i believe that aliens on mars are seeding torrents on piratebay..panspermia is essentially a "pink unicorn" theory... Panspermia is bs,deal with it...smh

Creatrixity:
yeah,right i believe in panspermia being able to seed earth with life just the way i believe that aliens on mars are seeding torrents on piratebay..panspermia is essentially a "pink unicorn" theory... Panspermia is bs,deal with it...smh

Another fool that can not tell the difference between a hypothesis and a fact.


Every hypothesis is BS until proven true.

^^ you don't strike me as an intelligent person..how can you support such stupidity in a debate?smh for you..

Creatrixity: ^^ you don't strike me as an intelligent person..how can you support such stupidity in a debate?smh for you..

What is stoopid about what or Dawkins said? You dont even understand what we are talking about and you just barged in

^^what is stupid?hear yourself logicboy..here are possible scenarios for the origin of life according to panspermia..

1.Life began once, on Mars, and came to Earth in Martian meteorites. May or may not still exist on Mars (amino acids or bacteria)

2.
Life originated on both Earth and Mars independently. Cross-colonization (cross-fertilization) may subsequently have occurred (a.a. or bacteria)

3.
Life began once, on Earth, and was propagated to Mars, where it possibly established itself (a.a. or bacteria)

4.
Life originated on both Earth and Mars, but in spite of the exchange of rocks and dust, no transfer of viable organisms has occurred

5.
Life originated on neither Earth nor Mars, but somewhere else entirely, such as a comet, Jupiter’s moon Europa, Venus, or body outside the Solar System altogether. It came to earth, perhaps Mars too, via some sort of Panspermia mechanism (a.a or bacteria)

6.
Life has originated on earth alone and has not (yet) successfully colonized another planet. Mars is, and always was, lifeless
http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm

Apparently the originators of the panspermia theory got confused..so next time before you get all worked up and post insupportable stupidity...think!!

Creatrixity: ^^what is stupid?hear yourself logicboy..here are possible scenarios for the origin of life according to panspermia..

Apparently the originators of the panspermia theory got confused..so next time before you get all worked up and post insupportable stupidity...think!!

Did you once hear the word panspermia theory from my mouth or Dawkins? Did you hear mars from any of our statements?



See the strawman this fool is bringing up?

Sorry for the abuse but it is highly irritating when people who have a serious ignorance come in and accuse you of something when they dont even know what they are talking about.

Creatrixity: ^^what is stupid?hear yourself logicboy..here are possible scenarios for the origin of life according to panspermia..

Apparently the originators of the panspermia theory got confused..so next time before you get all worked up and post insupportable stupidity...think!!

And Dawkins' case is worse ---- he was not just insinuating panspermia; he was insinuating directed panspermia.

When he was subjected to ridicule, he made a disingenuous self-rebuttal that he was just "explaining" how directed panspermia might work. Yeah right, pull the other one.

Logicboy,your above comments passes a lot of information about your iq levels..
Dawkins never mentioned panspermia for the fear of being ridiculed in the scientific community but you were sticking up for it almost as if it were fact..
that pisses me off!

^^ And Dawkins actually did mention 'directed panspermia' specifically in his self-rebuttal.

Enigma:

And Dawkins' case is worse ---- he was not just insinuating panspermia; he was insinuating directed panspermia.

When he was subjected to ridicule, he made a disingenuous self-rebuttal that he was just "explaining" how directed panspermia might work. Yeah right, pull the other one.

Pansermia?


God, these christians can lie! Was Dawkins talking about panspermia in the interview?

Where are the lies?i cant see any!

Hmmm

In his own self-rebuttal, Dawkins said specifically that what he was talking about in the video of the OP was indeed directed panspermia. In any event, anyone truly knowledgeable about these things knows he was talking about directed panspermia --- even if he did not use those specific words.

Creatrixity: Logicboy,your above comments passes a lot of information about your iq levels..
Dawkins never mentioned panspermia for the fear of being ridiculed in the scientific community but you were sticking up for it almost as if it were fact..
that pisses me off!

See the fool? You now admit that dawkins never mentioned panspermia in the interview.






No scientist will tell you that panspermia is a fact.

Enigma: Hmmm

In his own self-rebuttal, Dawkins said specifically that what he was talking about in the video of the OP was indeed directed panspermia. In any event, anyone truly knowledgeable about these things knows he was talking about directed panspermia --- even if he did not use those specific words.

I would like to know what panspermia has to do with a civilization that has a higher intelligence as Dawkins proposed in the video.


You people lie and try in very desperate ways to assassinate Dawkins's character.

Just like Dawkins himself lied and assassinated his own character when he admitted that what he was talking about in that video was indeed --- directed panspermia. Nice.

Logicboy03:



See the fool? You now admit that dawkins never mentioned panspermia in the interview.






No scientist will tell you that panspermia is a fact.

Breathe..then read my statement again,especially the part where I stated the reason Dawkins did not mention panspermia..
And by the way ,you can go read your "alien civilization where the gods of primitive people bullcrap" now..
You are too emotional,damn,you would have made a good fundamentalist!

^^^ Re the 'good fundamentalist' part; well, there are now fundagelical atheists too . . . . .

Creatrixity:
Breathe..then read my statement again,especially the part where I stated the reason Dawkins did not mention panspermia..
And by the way ,you can go read your "alien civilization where the gods of primitive people bullcrap" now..
You are too emotional,damn,you would have made a good fundamentalist!

Go home and be a family man.......


You have nothing......

Dawkins did not mention panspermia but he did imply it !here:

"It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet."

If this aint panspermia i don't know what it is..come and defend your pope logicboy!

^^^ And as I keep saying, Dawkins himself confirmed specifically that he was talking about erm ----- directed panspermia.

Creatrixity: Dawkins did not mention panspermia but he did imply it !here:

"It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization [/b]evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a [b]very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet."

If this aint panspermia i don't know what it is..come and defend your pope logicboy!

Take note of the bold and then go and read the panspermia hypothesis.

Panspermia Theory suggests that life seeds came from outer space and planets exchanged life. Panspermia literally means seeds everywhere.

Panspermia suggests that life could have existed on another planet and moved to Earth. Statistics have showed 7.5% of rocks from Mars reach Earth. The rocks would travel between less than 100 years to 16,000 years and more to get to earth.

Some of the proponents include Sales Gyon de Montlivant, who proposed life came from moon, H.E. Richter, who suggested life came from meteorites/comets, and Svante Arrhenius, who came up with Panspermia.

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed" is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.[1]
Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance.[2][citation needed]

See how stoopid some people are? Everyone can see how Dawkins was talking about a different origin of life than panspermia.

Hmmm

Once again, Dawkins himself said (or admitted) specifically that he was talking about erm ---- directed panspermia.