₦airaland Forum

Ah, before this thread winds down finally, I'm interested to see/know:

1. Whether anyone still or now doubts that, in the OP video, Dawkins was himself putting forward the speculation that aliens seeded life on this earth.

2. Whether anyone still or now doubts that the speculation or 'hypothesis' put forward by Dawkins is indeed directed panspermia.

3. Whether anyone thinks that Dawkins was honest in that second video, that I put up, when he denied that he was putting forward the speculation/hypothesis that some alien intelligent beings possibly seeded life on earth.

4. Whether anyone still or now wants to defend that speculation/hypothesis as worthwhile.

^^^ The apocrypha are not of the devil necessarily; it is just that Christians are divided on whether to have them or not. Some other Christian denominations which are not Roman Catholics still have them.

Interestingly even the King James Bible always had the apocrypha and they were only removed by some denominations much later.

Meanwhile if the Roman Catholics tell you that their "pope" is infallible or that the words of their "church" are the words of God, ask them about the following statement by their church and one of their "infallible" popes.

Per "Pope" Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

First of all, only if one falls for the lies and fraud of the [Roman] Catholic defenders would one have the difficulty of whether the Bible was "compiled" under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The fact remains that the Bible was NOT "compiled" by the [Roman] Catholic Church.

christemmbassey: I think we have to first of all settle the question of wh compiled the bible. @Enigma over to you, prove that the bible was not compiled by the RCC,.

I have already done so on about five threads recently including the one that I referred to above.

Here again https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

lol

E dey pain some people say there are some of us who know and can show that the Roman Catholic claims are based on fraud and twisting of history.

The Bible was not "compiled" by the [Roman] Catholic Church.

The Bible was "compiled" well before the 4th century by Christians who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics e.g. Origen.

The connection of the 4th century is because of the action of a regional and African synod which approved some books. The people at that synod were not Roman Catholics. That synod did not represent the Roman Catholic Church.

The Bible of the Roman Catholic Church itself was not finalised nor its own canon extablished till as recent as the 16th century at the Council of Trent. It is in fact and content different from the 4th century African selection.


This matter has been addressed extensively in a number of other threads and especially https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . Why the double standard?[/quote]Duplicity.


Minawala (aka meanwhile), onto another of the things I find fascinating about this thread.

In 'The Distinguished Gentleman', one fellow accused the Eddie Murphy character of being another congressman's 'Yes man'. Eddie Murphy promptly replied: "I'm not just his Yes man! When he votes No, I vote No too."

On this thread some of Dawkins disciples have been defending a speculation put forward by their Daddy G.O. as a worthwhile hypothesis. Now we know, as davidylan pointed out, that if that same speculation/hypothesis had been put forward by a creationist or believer in ID, Dawkins' followers would have ridiculed the person.

Interestingly, now that we have shown that after Dawkins himself was ridiculed for his 'speculation/hypothesis', he denied that he was putting forward the speculation/hypothesis and even impliedly ridiculed the speculation/hypothesis claiming it is the argument of creationists etc.

Do Dawkins' followers still believe that the 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' "discussed" by their Daddy G.O. in the OP video is worthwhile and worthy of defending?

Are Dawkins' disciples both Yes Men and No Men?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol...at least one thing is clear Dawkins himself has said he was indeed talking about directed panspermia. (for the benefit of logicboy)[/quote]

thehomer: Of course that is what he was talking about.

Enigma, Anony, Creatrixity, davidylan, the whole world ------ all "debunked".

Ah, and again from the horse's mumu's own mouth or hand ---- mind anyway.

Per richard Dawkins

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 . . . .

Thanks Mr Anony; that is a matter of simlpe straight logic and we will see if his disciles will now come to his defence.

From a post made in December 2011, I take the second video since the first duplicated is the same as in the OP. Watch Dawkins deny that he was himself putting forward that 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' but that he was in fact presenting the "best argument" that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might put forward.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/811383/big-lie/1#9813061


His disingenuous attempt at 'self-rebuttal' here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM





Oh by the way that video is just one evidence that Dawkins was indeed talking about directed panspermia in the OP video.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is that last question again.


If it was Dawkins who subsequently claimed that he was not putting forward that speculation/hypothesis at all but that he was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make . . . . . would we say that Dawkins would be lying in that event?

Creatrixity: Lol..you are one funny dude..why slander someone that shot himself in the foot!

Shot himself in the foot biiiiig time ---- then subsequently dissembled by saying he was not speculating or making the hypothesis that some other form of intelligence/beings might have been resposnible for the origination of life on earth.

I'm still watching for an answer to the question I posed ---- whether Dawkins would be seen to be lying if he says he wasn't putting forward that 'speculation' or 'hypothetis' in that OP video.

^^^ As for me, I believe in fairness and fair dealing to all.

Meanwhile this is your own old post that you have now hidden up there.

If you like ban me for 200 years after today's exchange. We will know the nature of the fundamentalism of the evangelical atheism religion too.

manmustwac: Topic title is offensive! LOCKED

Wayooooo! this is a thread you had locked since 2011.

Now just so as not to lock your fellow evangelical atheist's thread equating religion to mental illness, you now come and reopen this one without explanation.

I'm afraid that is chicanery.

Anyway, here is the exchange that led you to reopen this one: https://www.nairaland.com/1183785/7-reasons-why-religion-mental#14139771

In any event and as I told you on the other thread, there are more examples of threads that you locked because they were "offensive" to atheists. If I bring them up now, are you now going to reopen all those too! lol

NID

I didn't expect you to; you are too cowardly for that and won't want to lose face before your fellow evangelical atheists.

Make una enjoy unasefs.

Oh and finally: Thin skinned people kawai!

manmustwac: Well at the time I found that offensive & biased. Maybe I shoud've left it and modified the title & content but e don pass now & that was in 2011. If you don't like any of my decisions you can always leave a message in the complaints section & will always reconcider am only human

I don't have time for complaining about the nonsense here my friend.

In the past, I gently warned or needled you when you showed such bias; even my first post here was gentle and humorous but as you decide say you wan open ya own yansh na him you see just small consequence.

As I said, there are many other threads that you locked similarly with obvious and very shameful bias.

And finally: are you now going to lock this thread or not?

manmustwac: Your just hurt because you can't debunk logic boys & deep down inside you, you know what he's saying is true.

Show me the evidence of the christian threads that I lock or delete?

There is a shed load of threads that you locked disgracefully and out of bias just because it was "offensive" to atheists.

Because we nor dey talk you think say we no dey see ya bias. Yeyeful

Here is just one example: https://www.nairaland.com/752704/think-atheist-should-considered-mental#9086104

manmustwac: Topic title is offensive! LOCKED

And the God wey go catch you, the topic titles are almost identical.

Oh by the way are you also going to agree that the poster of that thread was saying truthful things that gave you "hurt" and which you know deep down inside you that you can't "debunk" and that is why you locked the thread?


Thin skinned people kawai!

Omexonomy: How did this poo became the first tread in this section.

manmustwac showing his evangelical atheist credentials and flexing atheist muscle.

Meanwhile if you post something not even half as bad as this about atheists, our friend will lock or delete the thread one time as "offensive".

Thin skinned people kawai.

{Please forgive my little wayo of first hiding my main question which now follows}

If it was Dawkins who subsequently claimed that he was not putting forward that speculation/hypothesis at all but that he was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make . . . . . would we say that Dawkins would be lying in that event?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]:. . . . Unfortunately Mr Dawkins is under no obligation to tell the truth neither is there an incentive for him not to lie. . . .[/quote]Indeed, some would argue that Dawkins did indeed lie or at least try to 'spin' things. I will leave that for later.

For now, let me say that there are a number of things I find fascinating about this thread and to hint at one of them as follows.

As far as I can see so far, the posters on this thread are agreed that in that video Dawkins was himself putting forward a "speculation" or "hypothesis" of how life came about on earth.This speculation/hypothesis (which we do not have to name for now ) is to the effect that life might have originated on earth as a result of the actions of some other forms of intelligent entities/beings or 'aliens'. OK so far?

Again, my observation is that on this thread both atheists and theists are agreed that Dawkins himself was making this speculation/hypothesis. In fact some atheists are still defending Dawkins' suggestion as a worthwhile hypothesis.

Now supposing someone else comes along and says that in that video Dawkins was not himself putting forward the speculation/hypothesis at all but was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make.

Would we say that such a person is lying?.

One my nna from Eastside like that been dey try impress one chikito so. Na im e come tell the girl: "you see that Toyota Cecilia parked over there, na me get am." The girl looked around and said, "oh you mean the Celica!". Na im my bros reply am one time: "You know the name, I get the car - you see am so?"

davidylan: today was saturday, i went shopping.

Oh by the way, you should pay attention to enigma.

Bros, a wise person would pay attention to that advice.

Take for example the old post that I referred to in my last post --- I've just had a look at the date and it was made in April 2012 - long before this thread as I said. That would put a wise person on notice to tread carefully.

Logicboy03: Enigma is talking nonsense out of butthurt.

first 2 pages was nothing but shouting evangelical atheism and now that he has someone attacking logicboy, he wants to join in and shout panspermia.

You know what I always say and who I always think your insults also apply to whenever you insult me.

As I said before, the evidence of Dawkins saying specifically that the hypothesis he was putting forward is directed panspermia can be produced in a matter of seconds. However, I will only put it forward, if I find it necessary at all, in my own time.

Meanwhile, people enjoy something I posted long before this thread.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-argument-existence-something#10528689

Enigma: Let us add more big big grammar. It was "directed panspermia"!

Even the dunce Dawkins realised how bad that one is that he quickly moved to dissociate himself after evidently putting it forward as the basis of origin of life on earth.

I am going to revise that my last post slightly for greater clarity and repost it here.


Presently, our friend is putting forward the hypothesis presented by Dawkins in that video as worthy --- because he thinks the hypothesis being put forward by Dawkins is different from [directed] panspermia.

Now if we present the evidence of (a) Dawkins himself saying it is directed panspermia and (b) Dawkins actually distancing himself from saying that the hypothesis is worthy . . . . . . .

Instead of putting forward the evidence let me gift out something I've been amusing myself with in my mind since this little exchange started.

Presently, our friend is putting forward the hypothesis presented by Dawkins in that video as worthy.

Now if we present the evidence of (a) Dawkins himself saying it is directed panspermia and (b) Dawkins actually distancing himself from saying that the hypothesis is worthy . . . . . . .

Talking about 'dumbest' one of the responses ridiculing Dawkins for his directed panspermia hypothesis used the expression 'dumb and dumber'.

lol

Dawkins said specifically and in fact with both his hand and mouth that he was speaking of directed panspermia in that video.

^^^ And in fact I actually have specific evidence and it will take me only seconds to put them here . . . . . but no need.

Dawkins himself has said specifically and in fact with both his hand and mouth that he was talking about directed panspermia in that video.

@ Creatrixity

Please, we do not need to show anyone any evidence; let it be homework or assignment.

And once again, Dawkins himself said specifically that he was talking about directed panspermia in that video.

Creatrixity: ^^I wonder o!What part of that does he not understand?

You know, since Dawkins has said he was indeed talking about directed panspermia it is either Dawkins does not know what it means ----- or maybe someone else does not know what it means.