He doesnt build his argument from the ground up, but from the top down logic would say: either no where or everywhere --> therefore yes, our unlikeley existence points to GOD
there's another possible reason we've never been visited. there may be hundreds of advanced civilizations existing in our own milky way galaxy, but the space between them, the "islands" as dawkins called them, are hundreds to thousands of light years away from each other. such distances would likely prevent even advanced aliens from visiting us.
@@watchman9198 I can honestly say I don't know how the world was created but from reading DAWKINS, LAURENCE KRAUSS,SAM HARRIS and CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS the theory that they purpose seems way more plausible than the invisible COSMIC DICTATOR with a totalitarian system 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣....Fools and Fanatics are full of certainty but a wise man is full of doubt.. VOLTAIRE
Is it such a coincidence if one planet out of septillions developed intelligent life? What if it had happened somewhere else? Then it would be Zorgnax and his species feeling the universe was made for them. Life-long Dawkins fan.
While it doesn't explain how life came about it gives us a much broader range, if life came from earth then all our theories must be built on early earth conditions, if life could have originated anywhere in the universe we have countless more possible avenues to explore.
@sbergman27 Sounds about right. I can't remember who said it..maybe Terence McKenna... that we're reaching a very crucial point, where we'll either destroy ourselves, or transition on to a new, further stage. The precariousness inherent in this epoch is that if we fail, we may survive in smaller numbers, but will have exhausted our resources so completely that we may never have this chance again. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's worth thinking seriously about.
On a single planet the odds of life developing are extremely small, but when you have trillions of planets eventually you will get one. Only on those planets whom developed life can there be minds to question the odds of them being sentient. It's like having a lottery in which no one knows exists except the winners. It would be very easy for the winners to think that they were somehow chosen since they did not know they were even entered to win.
@@orderofflea4759 his book the selfish gene transformed evolutionary biology lol. If you're not a fan that's fine but to say he spouts uninteresting mainstream stuff is idiotic 🤣🤣
@@markcromwell1975 god has been proven many times. Atheism is an irrational stance because if there is no god then there would be no morality. If you dont think theres a god to account to then life is practically meaningless. Its why were seeing america becoming dysfunctional society. God exist because his prophecies are true, he listens and hears my prayers. Atheism is the ultimate tool used by the devil to bring everybody under the earth
@@markcromwell1975 if god just showed up and started doing things and followed your unsatified desires to test god then we wouldnt appreciate him nor love him. God is testing us through faith and patience. God is already doing something if you ask for forgiveness and get baptised changing us inside out and now we see through spiritual lens instead of the eyes of the flesh. Yes we need god to have morals. Again if you didnt believe god was watching over you you would be cheating on your significant other and murdering people, stealing from people and forsaking the traditional given institution of marriage. Every since evolution and atheism has been teaching in schools people are behaving exactly what they are told they are monkeyes its weird
@vooooom I would add that often times the word "Alien" has a certain connotation. But technically an Alien could be any of form of life on a planet that isn't ours; such as bacteria, microscopic organisms, or even plants.
I find his distinction between "technological" and "non-technological" life rather puzzling. After all, we were once non-technological. Doesn't evolution, by definition, allow sufficiently intelligent organisms to develop technology of one kind or another? Doesn't it allow for thinking beings to _become_ technological over time?
The existence of something(or anything, really), is not proof of its creator. The mere fact that something exists proves just that. It exists. period. As Dawkins says in his book(like ez said), putting a creator into the mix just takes us further from the answer, not closer. The question would be "How did this cell come to exist?" and answering with "God did it" just raises more questions. How? because it begs the question "Well, where did this God come from??".
I think the most interesting fact is how lucky we all are. I mean, the vast majority of material in the universe will never be part of a living system, let alone a conscious being.
@Sophmega "In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos" (go read wikipedia..) I'm not saying he rejects god, but he does reject creationism (ID). No propaganda, unless you're deaf.....
@IconOfSin88 What is your point? On what basis do you assume there "has to be a faster way of communications"? Maybe there is but "has to be" is bullshit. The fact is right now radio waves are as fast as anything we know about so that's what is used.
PaxTorumin : Did I post the "waffle" message to you ?? If I did then I apologise - it was intended for thulsadoom31 -- but, being inebriated last night I must have clicked the wrong "reply" - Guinness is mighty !
No, it's not probable for life on this earth or anywhere else. Dawkins gets that wrong. I'm now past the middle of the vid and he's still word farting not answering crap. Then on top of this stupid Dawkins' word fart, I have to watch this bitch looking at Dawkins as if he is actually answering and she now wants to jump in bed with Dawkins and screw the hell out him. Of course, Dawkins does his runaround. Life is impossible to have happened without God. Dawkins NEVER got around that. He just gave a long word fart but he did get the bitch next to him to jump his bones after.
@@2fast2block lol. Mate! Ur jealous Ps: he explained it quite properly, there r 80 billion galaxy's and just coz we happened to be in the goldilox zone .its not coz of god rather coz it was bound to happen! Rule of probability 101
@IconOfSin88 So.. IF there are aliens and IF they are into interstellar exploring and IF they require faster-than-light comm and IF there is something faster than light and IF they discover it and IF what they find it suitable for faster communications... in my book that quite a ways from "there has to be".
God does not care about the Earth being destroyed by the Sun. That's the problem with some religious people, they think God cares about humans on Earth but He really does not. God isn't your daily superhero, He just caused the Big Bang and then evolution happened.
Looking at ancient texts and cultures like the Sumerians and the cosmological knowledge of the Dogons and current events like the Disclosure Project and such, I would not come to the conclusion that we have neven been visited. We can stubbornly keep saying 'no' in the face of evidence of the contrary.
He forgot to mention time. "Intelligent" life can destroy itself or use all it's resources. In other words The probability of intelligent extraterrestrial life at the same time of humanity is even less probable. But with the size of the universe it's very likely. It's the Drake equation
@bernytheman You're right they're both saying different things. I probably should've been more careful with my vocabulary and elaborated on it. And Perhaps there could be way to test for Panspermia, again, hypothesis and theories live on die based on evidence and their ability to be falsified. So we would have to find a good test for it. Thanks for catching that error, I'll try to be more careful with my language next time.
@CommanderC4 thats not true! Using planetary Drake equation, we calculated that around 50 million exoplanets are habitable in our Milky Way. Furthermore, Kepler investigated a tiny fraction of space in our galaxy, and found at least 68 Earth-like planets. So its not a question of can life exist elsewhere, but does life exist elsewhere!
not to mention information is limited to the speed of light. We've only been able to interpret information like radio for less than 100 years. That is an incredibly small target for radio waves from even thousands of other species that happened to evolve with hands that could make tools to hit. Not to mention, we have to be listening to the right frequency, of which there are innumerable. Also, it's entirely possible that life exists on venus. Sulfur-based extremophiles exist on earth in similar
@sbergman27 I will be gone for a few days on a trip, leave comments if you want, I can pick up my mail upon return. Good talking to you. Have a great week.
@IconOfSin88 It's pointless to assume anything about aliens including what kind of radiation they might emit into space. It's also an assumption to think an alien civilization that has faster-than-light communications would not also emit other more easily detectable electro-magnetic radiation into space. If one is curious one either listens with the technology one has or does nothing. But to wait assuming you'll someday match up with Them is the same crap shoot we have now.
I'll keep it very very simple for YOU. Science is the how. The why is unimportant. Natural Selection can be seen as a why, for instance, but it's still kind of a how. Why is "Why" so important? Is it that damaging to your ego that you weren't designed?
On the topic of single events: Easier than recreating the universe is creating life: simulate the conditions of the early earth for a billion of year on a vast scale(all of the earth surface may do). And you are quite likely to come up with some kind of primitive life. Scientist have in not even a century already produced many of the basic pieces for this with rather small scaled experiments. Some of these pieces even reproduce themselves, just not yet the way you can call them alive.
Carl Sagan said in his Cosmos series that perhaps the reason why life is so rare in the universe is because intelligent life might end up destroying itself with its own technology over ideology. There may have been intelligent life on venus and mars that ended up destroying itself and then the climate change over time destroyed any obvious evidence of their existence.
thulsadoom31: Name calling ? The irony is that I used your words !! To repeat that which I stated: "A multi-verse is one of many possible, plausible alternatives." = I did NOT say that I agree with that viewpoint (I do not) - The point is that the probability of 'god' is considerably less - virtually Zero in reality.
i'll keep it very, very complicated you lot: science is the how. God (not religion*) is the why. * it is important to understand that a belief in God does not always assert that the believer is part of a society of indoctrinated persons that is usually described with that heinous term "religion" or "religious".
@sbergman27 Right. My guess is that a focus on sustainability and greater ability for long-term thinking/planning would be a feature of such a civilization. This is something most of us (at least those in power) seem to lack at this point.
I truly believe that life is abundant in the universe. One day, will have the technology or super advanced telescopes that can reach other solar systems. Every sun or star has planets orbiting it. If our solar system has these properties, so do others. We’re just too far apart from one another. Out there somewhere, there’s is a planet in the goldylock zone just like ours with the same ingredients to create life. In the winter, you don’t get fruit flies because it’s cold, but with correct temperature, life finds away and fruit flies are abundant. You put a piece of bread in the freezer, two weeks later, still the same. Leave it out in a cool or warm place , life will find a way, you’ll have moldie bread…bacteria, life.
He's forgetting the third factor: the size of the universe. There could be thousands of technologically advanced (as us) civilisations in just our galaxy alone, but how to communicate over hundreds of light-years, let alone travel? We've barely had time to explore our own solar system. One could speculate that similar conditions hold elsewhere.
@joeturner9219 I believe that conditions for life are probably uncommon, but in such a vast universe it's likely that life has evolved many, many times and of those times, intelligence has also evolved occasionally. If it has, even so, it doesn't follow that there would be space-faring intelligent aliens that have the means to travel here or communicate with us at this point in time. I don't believe in gods. Life is just chemistry; chemistry merely the result of the physics of nature.
Well, at least this is a better explanation, and polite. Just how far out from earth does the goldilocks zone go? Also, Dawkins says something about different kinds of life should and according to evolution theory must exist? He doesn't go into what the prerequisites are, nor that their needed. And if they are needed? Then the statistics are against life being out there, so far. Is this not correct?
@grimwatcher I agree that panspermia doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is a valid theory about how it came to planet earth. Now, saying it came from another planet and saying God did it are two diferent things. In one you're saying it was born somewhere else and you don't how and in the other you're saying life magically appeared because our big daddy got bored and wanted something to do...
Suppose that in 'reality' intelligent life is only just emerging, as the 'World Wide Web' ...and Human life is an intermediate stage. perhaps even a stage that eventually becomes redundant? and surplus to requirements!
Data speak for themself if you kinow how to interpret them (becouse you know about more data) and you know exactly where data came from. The complexity science has evolved to made this all verry ,yes complex. The begining of universe might nog be a single event. If you create (the C-wordt) the same situation our univese is coming from you might have a new big bang. This is just a bit dificult to do.
Where’s the answer to the origin of The Universe? All he was talking about was the probability of the earth and others to exist but nothing about the how this precise existence started?!
@sbergman27 You cannot dismiss God, unless you can in fact prove that our knowledge of causation is so extensive that they can confidently and positively be proven, and that is an impossibility. Modern science even concludes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. If God made the universe, he also made the laws of nature, and he can alter them. Science becomes arrogant, God shakes the tree. .Now Quantum physics, Gods Scvience, may be as Feinman said a distant dream.
I think there are definitely many other planets that have life. The life in some of those planets are primitive, but there are also advanced extra-terrestrials in other planets who are more advanced than humans. I also think that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth in the past and maybe even now. I also think that Evolution and Abiogenesis are both correct.
@wHisperis001 In his book? You mean the books he wrote before he became a Christian. Francis S.Collins: " Why this scientist believes in God" He is the director of the Human Genome Project and a former Atheist . He also wrote "A Scientist presents evidence for belief" He said DNA is the information molecule in all things, and he is now convinced as Gods plan. If you have anything give the name of the book otherwise its just the same old Atheist propaganda as usual.
Was this done before water was discovered on the moon? If water can be on the moon and it's a little closer to the sun than us. Why isn't there anything else or why hasn't it boiled off??? It's had billions of years to evaporate according to evolutionary theory.
@sbergman27 Atheism violates the laws of mathematics.Faith is required for all humans. Anything that you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle, you can assume but cannot prove. No statement can prove its own truth. You always need an outside reference point. Faith and reason cannot exist one without the other. All reasoning ultimately must trace back to faith in something you cannot prove.
Well I do get rather angered when you derogatorially and sarcastic address us as a lot and say you are going to be complicated and state two sentences. Leave your demeaning ways out of intelligent discussion. I'm asking you, what could you possibly base your belief that there has to be a why on. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, no evidence for us having to have a purpose to be here, so what do you base your beliefs on? Feeling? Upbringing?
Time 2:06 reference to the goldy locks zone. About the water boiling off if we were any closer?????? The moon is closer.....water was discovered on the moon..... Why hasn't it evaporated off already??? And since it's there, why isn't there any life of any significance??? Do you understand what double standards are??? Double talk?? Circular reasoning?? Get a clue.
I wonder if he ever gets bored of having to counter the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If only religious people would look some shit up for themselves...
@sbergman27 And you spoke of a " complex creator" and orders of magnitude, and the goal to explain the universe? . Are you attempting to ignore the fact that this entire universe, the beginning of life, consciousness, and the entire gamut of trillions of situations that are necessary to support our existence are in fact MORE complex than we will ever explain. If the simplest answer is usually the right one (Occams Razor) then God is that answer.
thulsadoom31 : Learn to read... I said I USED your words. And when I said: "And you are flippant.... and odiously deluded. " ... That is simply the way you project yourself ... your problem, not mine. Consider that how so ever you choose.
Against astronomical odds,...given the singular permutivities of biomolecular,geophysical,and helioseismological stressors occurring in failed fits and starts over countless eons??Oh yes---at last:LIFE
Dawkins is suppose to be the expert evolutionist. You can't say evolution is the answer to how life evolved and then talk about how life started, without the inference being made. Evolution is portrayed as the answer to life, but talk about origins and all that it intels and suddenly you want to cliam it has nothing to do with evolution. So, it's nothing but double talk.
thulsadoom31: PaxTorumin eloquently pre-empted my response with his comment to me (starting with "Sadly..." - most appropriate). It is not in my nature to be as polite with waffle-mongers such as yourself. And.. The statement: "According to classical theism, God is a necessary being..." presumes a conclusion - that got exists. How you fail to understand that defies belief.
It's like getting almost an unlimited amount of guesses for the lottery. All the other planets in our solar system have failed, and mostly in the universe the "guesses" have been wrong. But in this one case we are here. And how lucky of us the be here on this planet to prove lifes existance? We are life on this planet, That is very illogical to make it mysterious.
Exactly, check out all of today's narcissistic, greedy scientists lacking critical thinking because they are blinded by their arrogance. Yes indeed. Sadly. And this comes from a student of the natural sciences. I love biology, theology and astronomy. I have studied 2 and I am on the way God willing to study and discover the third on my list.
@sbergman27 The volume of the earth and all of that universe, and you try to equate that this somehow makes us vain to believe it was created. In all that space and so many years here we are on this tiny speck discussing that creator. Are you so foolish and vain to think this is an accident?
@sbergman27 Most likely there are some other races of beings out there who think--or who have thought--the same thing at some point during their history. Then they evolved.
You seem rather angered there.. Nothing happens for no reason. There is no such thing as a coincidence. I seem to be leaning to the notion (at the moment) that Micro Evolution ( NOT Macro Evolution- the bollocks about the world and it's lifeforms all stemming from nothing and a near impossible explosion of matter along with all the laws of nature and physics- thats all seems ridiculous) is HOW GOD created the world to be as it is nw. He set all these amazing Laws of life into action. I
"Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other." Leads to the other, exactly, and you say evolution is fact without solving or proving the begining. The only evolution is micro-evolution, which could also be called adaptation. It doesn't prove a fish can become a lizard or something like that. See, I knew you understood me, you....playing dumb.
I'm an open minded person and find his answer to the question not convincing at all, let's assume that earth is originated by chance, can you convince me how a such a sophisticated life structure , let’s say like a DNA cell, got formed ? , I find it highly improbable that sudden reaction of cells created this sophisticated life structure, even us human cannot for the past million year create it in a lab, there are many life on this earth that cannot be the chance of probability and evolution
@sbergman27 When you consider all that universe and our minimal place in it, consider that here you are contemplating the creator of all of that. Are people so foolish as to think that in those 70 thousand million trillion stars you mentioned, why are you here contemplating the creator. If you consider that to be just an accident, then that is truly foolish. So thats one hell of an accident isnt it? If this planet suffers, its because we are ignoring the reality instead of accepting it.
@sbergman27 Your reporting on emperical observation? How, when there is none in creation. Do you even know what emperical observation is??? We have theories when we have no real proof, otherwise its fact. Emperical observation is when we can directly observe or experiment directly on the subjects. So your trying to claim you were there during the creation and observed it? LOL, was that a joke. Have you ever done stand up comedy , you would be good at it.
You need to talk to discovery channel then. They portray evolution as the begining of life. And like I said you can't have it both ways. Double talk!!!!!!
@Sophmega "In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design". Straight from wikipedia. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
thulsadoom31: Truth ?? Plantinga ? ... I took the time to read that old man's semantic gymnastics - utter nonsense. Anyone who bases an argument with an assumption of correctness has no sense of reality: Quote: "According to classical theism, God is a necessary being... according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex" ... basing premises on such pre-conceived conclusions defies all sense of reason and sensibility.
You realize Dawkins addresses this very point in his book. This line of thinking would be acceptable if no scientific advances had been made in the last 50 years.
Pax: Persuading religious fruit-cakes of the benefits of a rational oulook based on the little we actually know of reality is akin to teaching a worm to sing the 'Ave Maria' backwards. Mr. thisisdoom31 has the dubious distinction of contributing the first comment here, 4 months ago, and has been babbling a myriad of nonsenses since... Thou wasteth your time ...
Dawkins has mocked theist for suggesting life came from space so what has changed his tune ? we have been visited but people like Dawkins or Shermer debunk it
***** I was annoyed with Dawkins for distorting science to fit his atheism but now I just feel sorry for him and those that follow him down this darwinian agenda, they are devolving, did you know he works with SETI, no wonder they have found nothing
give one example of Dawkins distorting science to fit his atheism. I would suggest that what's really happening is that your religion has distorted what you consider science.
Never been to church or read the Bible but have a love of science and have found Dawkins distorts science by changing the words he uses, Dawkins has mocked the idea of life being designed by a more intelligent life form, has claimed the cell evolved from inert materials and much more with the added claim that science has proved these things, much of what Dawkins has claimed over 30 yrs has turned out wrong and in debates with scientist that specialize in DNA and rotein design laughs at the idea codes may have been designed at the start of life, he believes they bumped together in the dirt until they made a protein
You are grossly mischaracterizing abiogenesis and misrepresenting Dawkins. He NEVER claimed the cell evolved from 'inert' materials since chemical reactions are required for all biogenic processes. That is either a blatent lie or a misquote. Dawkins may have used the term 'prove' colloquially, since science' can never prove anything absolutely, but the evidence supporting evolution of organisms, both unicellular and multi-cellular, is enormous, and there is SIGNIFICANT reason to believe that abiogensis is a perfectly reasonable and viable explanation for the beginnings of life on earth backed up by current science and recent experiments. There is absolutely NO evidence to presume that there is higher intelligence involved in the creation of life and most assertions to that end are nothing more than fallacious argument from ignorance. Because we don't fully understand how life began does not in any way suggest we can presume it must be 'created' by some unknown intelligence. That position is absurd. Maybe the bible isn't the irrational thing you believe in, something equally silly perhaps. If someone presented the idea that DNA codes may have been designed as scientific I would laugh as well because there is NO EVIDENCE to support such a proposition. Therefore it is decidedly unscientific.
He follows Darwins theory and evolution as taught in all public schools for last 80 yrs, Dawkin has said life came from inert materials naturally in many interviews, I will give you some advice, go watch all of Dawkins claips and debates where he is talking with other real scientist, now he is pushing multi-universes and that the universe came from nothing to kids, even his out of africa theory is debunked on latest findings, he is always wrong and wont allow another view
A cart full of FOOLS: Edward Harshaw, mohamed nasef, James Bell, imnojasontodd, Jinhong Tam, Nathan El, m beginization; Standing room only, it is crowded.
I remember once learning in middle-school that one theory of life was that microbes from another planet seeded the earth. But then the immediate question any child would've asked which I did was, well, how did those originate? The former theory possible DOES NOT explain the origin of life, it just transfers the problem. Just like saying God did it.
He was the Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford for a reason. The position was even made with him in mind.
He doesnt build his argument from the ground up, but from the top down
logic would say: either no where or everywhere --> therefore yes, our unlikeley existence points to GOD
there's another possible reason we've never been visited. there may be hundreds of advanced civilizations existing in our own milky way galaxy, but the space between them, the "islands" as dawkins called them, are hundreds to thousands of light years away from each other. such distances would likely prevent even advanced aliens from visiting us.
I hope Richard gets saved some day
@joeturner9219 your exactly right!
Why does he need to be??? He's a perfectly good human being 🤔🤔😳😳
@joeturner9219that's HILARIOUS THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE OF AN COSMIC DICTATOR 🤔🤣🤣🤣
@@RupertMay let me guess you believe the world created itself like Richard don’t you?
@@watchman9198 I can honestly say I don't know how the world was created but from reading DAWKINS, LAURENCE KRAUSS,SAM HARRIS and CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS the theory that they purpose seems way more plausible than the invisible COSMIC DICTATOR with a totalitarian system 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣....Fools and Fanatics are full of certainty but a wise man is full of doubt.. VOLTAIRE
Is it such a coincidence if one planet out of septillions developed intelligent life? What if it had happened somewhere else? Then it would be Zorgnax and his species feeling the universe was made for them. Life-long Dawkins fan.
While it doesn't explain how life came about it gives us a much broader range, if life came from earth then all our theories must be built on early earth conditions, if life could have originated anywhere in the universe we have countless more possible avenues to explore.
@sbergman27 Sounds about right. I can't remember who said it..maybe Terence McKenna... that we're reaching a very crucial point, where we'll either destroy ourselves, or transition on to a new, further stage. The precariousness inherent in this epoch is that if we fail, we may survive in smaller numbers, but will have exhausted our resources so completely that we may never have this chance again. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's worth thinking seriously about.
@IconOfSin88
What makes you think radio waves are slow?
Just how fast do you think they are?
Please name three things that are faster.
I love Richard Dawkins . From KSA
On a single planet the odds of life developing are extremely small, but when you have trillions of planets eventually you will get one. Only on those planets whom developed life can there be minds to question the odds of them being sentient. It's like having a lottery in which no one knows exists except the winners.
It would be very easy for the winners to think that they were somehow chosen since they did not know they were even entered to win.
Why the hell would aliens want to go to this stupid planet
wHisperis001 most likely not for the humans anyway
Maybe to experiment on Earth.
Because its amazing.
Richard is such a wealth of information and he draws you in with how easy he is to listen to. Remarkable man who talks perfect sense.
Nah he just spouts the most mainstream and accepted view on each topic nothing original or interesting
@@orderofflea4759 his book the selfish gene transformed evolutionary biology lol. If you're not a fan that's fine but to say he spouts uninteresting mainstream stuff is idiotic 🤣🤣
Atheism is idiotic
@@markcromwell1975 god has been proven many times. Atheism is an irrational stance because if there is no god then there would be no morality. If you dont think theres a god to account to then life is practically meaningless. Its why were seeing america becoming dysfunctional society. God exist because his prophecies are true, he listens and hears my prayers. Atheism is the ultimate tool used by the devil to bring everybody under the earth
@@markcromwell1975 if god just showed up and started doing things and followed your unsatified desires to test god then we wouldnt appreciate him nor love him. God is testing us through faith and patience. God is already doing something if you ask for forgiveness and get baptised changing us inside out and now we see through spiritual lens instead of the eyes of the flesh. Yes we need god to have morals. Again if you didnt believe god was watching over you you would be cheating on your significant other and murdering people, stealing from people and forsaking the traditional given institution of marriage. Every since evolution and atheism has been teaching in schools people are behaving exactly what they are told they are monkeyes its weird
@vooooom
I would add that often times the word "Alien" has a certain connotation. But technically an Alien could be any of form of life on a planet that isn't ours; such as bacteria, microscopic organisms, or even plants.
and atheists. Atheists are really no different than religious people.
Either way, life is truly amazing and precious no matter what you believe.
Athiests are diff from religious ppl.
I find his distinction between "technological" and "non-technological" life rather puzzling. After all, we were once non-technological. Doesn't evolution, by definition, allow sufficiently intelligent organisms to develop technology of one kind or another? Doesn't it allow for thinking beings to _become_ technological over time?
The existence of something(or anything, really), is not proof of its creator. The mere fact that something exists proves just that. It exists. period.
As Dawkins says in his book(like ez said), putting a creator into the mix just takes us further from the answer, not closer. The question would be "How did this cell come to exist?" and answering with "God did it" just raises more questions. How? because it begs the question "Well, where did this God come from??".
I think the most interesting fact is how lucky we all are. I mean, the vast majority of material in the universe will never be part of a living system, let alone a conscious being.
Consciousness had been around long before us. Ask any genuine Mystic.
@@108padma No such creature
@@108padma yeah sure ask them to prove it and they'll crumble.
God created the Big Bang then evolution happened.
@Sophmega "In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos" (go read wikipedia..)
I'm not saying he rejects god, but he does reject creationism (ID). No propaganda, unless you're deaf.....
@IconOfSin88
What is your point? On what basis do you assume there "has to be a faster way of communications"?
Maybe there is but "has to be" is bullshit. The fact is right now radio waves are as fast as anything we know about so that's what is used.
PaxTorumin :
Did I post the "waffle" message to you ??
If I did then I apologise - it was intended for thulsadoom31 -- but, being inebriated last night I must have clicked the wrong "reply" - Guinness is mighty !
@wHisperis001 And the evidence for "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creation" - which are just ID under another name - are exactly what?
He's Smart ❤🌍
No, it's not probable for life on this earth or anywhere else. Dawkins gets that wrong. I'm now past the middle of the vid and he's still word farting not answering crap. Then on top of this stupid Dawkins' word fart, I have to watch this bitch looking at Dawkins as if he is actually answering and she now wants to jump in bed with Dawkins and screw the hell out him. Of course, Dawkins does his runaround. Life is impossible to have happened without God. Dawkins NEVER got around that. He just gave a long word fart but he did get the bitch next to him to jump his bones after.
@@2fast2block lol. Mate! Ur jealous
Ps: he explained it quite properly, there r 80 billion galaxy's and just coz we happened to be in the goldilox zone .its not coz of god rather coz it was bound to happen! Rule of probability 101
there's no proof for a globe, dummy
@@arianagrandaremix8858 He trolls all of these videos
Richard my pleasures and respect!!!!
@IconOfSin88
So.. IF there are aliens and IF they are into interstellar exploring and IF they require faster-than-light comm and IF there is something faster than light and IF they discover it and IF what they find it suitable for faster communications... in my book that quite a ways from "there has to be".
@XDockhand SETI is not supported by tax dollars. It's a privately funded program.
thank you to point that out. so there is still hope for me :)
Ummm the earth will be destroyed in the last dying gasp of our sun. That was part of whose plan or design?
You are begging the question, by asserting it was a plan/design by a who.
God does not care about the Earth being destroyed by the Sun. That's the problem with some religious people, they think God cares about humans on Earth but He really does not. God isn't your daily superhero, He just caused the Big Bang and then evolution happened.
Looking at ancient texts and cultures like the Sumerians and the cosmological knowledge of the Dogons and current events like the Disclosure Project and such, I would not come to the conclusion that we have neven been visited. We can stubbornly keep saying 'no' in the face of evidence of the contrary.
He forgot to mention time. "Intelligent" life can destroy itself or use all it's resources. In other words The probability of intelligent extraterrestrial life at the same time of humanity is even less probable. But with the size of the universe it's very likely. It's the Drake equation
And there might be a cap to how intelligent a civilization can be until they get to a point where they feel life is pointless and then self destruct
@bernytheman
You're right they're both saying different things. I probably should've been more careful with my vocabulary and elaborated on it.
And Perhaps there could be way to test for Panspermia, again, hypothesis and theories live on die based on evidence and their ability to be falsified. So we would have to find a good test for it.
Thanks for catching that error, I'll try to be more careful with my language next time.
He doesn't talk about I it much, but does consider the idea we were seeded here a valid theory.
@CommanderC4 thats not true! Using planetary Drake equation, we calculated that around 50 million exoplanets are habitable in our Milky Way. Furthermore, Kepler investigated a tiny fraction of space in our galaxy, and found at least 68 Earth-like planets. So its not a question of can life exist elsewhere, but does life exist elsewhere!
eleminatus like he says there are more variables than the goldilocks zone
not to mention information is limited to the speed of light. We've only been able to interpret information like radio for less than 100 years. That is an incredibly small target for radio waves from even thousands of other species that happened to evolve with hands that could make tools to hit. Not to mention, we have to be listening to the right frequency, of which there are innumerable. Also, it's entirely possible that life exists on venus. Sulfur-based extremophiles exist on earth in similar
@sbergman27 I will be gone for a few days on a trip, leave comments if you want, I can pick up my mail upon return. Good talking to you. Have a great week.
good vid.
@IconOfSin88
It's pointless to assume anything about aliens including what kind of radiation they might emit into space. It's also an assumption to think an alien civilization that has faster-than-light communications would not also emit other more easily detectable electro-magnetic radiation into space.
If one is curious one either listens with the technology one has or does nothing. But to wait assuming you'll someday match up with Them is the same crap shoot we have now.
I'll keep it very very simple for YOU. Science is the how. The why is unimportant. Natural Selection can be seen as a why, for instance, but it's still kind of a how. Why is "Why" so important? Is it that damaging to your ego that you weren't designed?
On the topic of single events:
Easier than recreating the universe is creating life: simulate the conditions of the early earth for a billion of year on a vast scale(all of the earth surface may do). And you are quite likely to come up with some kind of primitive life.
Scientist have in not even a century already produced many of the basic pieces for this with rather small scaled experiments. Some of these pieces even reproduce themselves, just not yet the way you can call them alive.
Carl Sagan said in his Cosmos series that perhaps the reason why life is so rare in the universe is because intelligent life might end up destroying itself with its own technology over ideology. There may have been intelligent life on venus and mars that ended up destroying itself and then the climate change over time destroyed any obvious evidence of their existence.
if youre god, couldnt you make any condition livable?
That would make humans less special.
thulsadoom31:
Name calling ?
The irony is that I used your words !!
To repeat that which I stated:
"A multi-verse is one of many possible, plausible alternatives."
= I did NOT say that I agree with that viewpoint (I do not) - The point is that the probability of 'god' is considerably less - virtually Zero in reality.
If there is a Large number of planets with life why have scientists not found it. Life comes from life so what is the source?
you have not paid attention to the video whatsoever. Did you enter the comments just to play "gotcha"?
i'll keep it very, very complicated you lot:
science is the how.
God (not religion*) is the why.
* it is important to understand that a belief in God does not always assert that the believer is part of a society of indoctrinated persons that is usually described with that heinous term "religion" or "religious".
@sbergman27 Right. My guess is that a focus on sustainability and greater ability for long-term thinking/planning would be a feature of such a civilization. This is something most of us (at least those in power) seem to lack at this point.
I truly believe that life is abundant in the universe. One day, will have the technology or super advanced telescopes that can reach other solar systems. Every sun or star has planets orbiting it. If our solar system has these properties, so do others. We’re just too far apart from one another. Out there somewhere, there’s is a planet in the goldylock zone just like ours with the same ingredients to create life. In the winter, you don’t get fruit flies because it’s cold, but with correct temperature, life finds away and fruit flies are abundant. You put a piece of bread in the freezer, two weeks later, still the same. Leave it out in a cool or warm place , life will find a way, you’ll have moldie bread…bacteria, life.
He's forgetting the third factor: the size of the universe. There could be thousands of technologically advanced (as us) civilisations in just our galaxy alone, but how to communicate over hundreds of light-years, let alone travel? We've barely had time to explore our own solar system. One could speculate that similar conditions hold elsewhere.
What if we are the most technologically advanced or even if we are alone simply because we are the first , lacking a second at this time .
@joeturner9219 I believe that conditions for life are probably uncommon, but in such a vast universe it's likely that life has evolved many, many times and of those times, intelligence has also evolved occasionally. If it has, even so, it doesn't follow that there would be space-faring intelligent aliens that have the means to travel here or communicate with us at this point in time.
I don't believe in gods. Life is just chemistry; chemistry merely the result of the physics of nature.
Well, at least this is a better explanation, and polite. Just how far out from earth does the goldilocks zone go? Also, Dawkins says something about different kinds of life should and according to evolution theory must exist? He doesn't go into what the prerequisites are, nor that their needed. And if they are needed? Then the statistics are against life being out there, so far. Is this not correct?
@grimwatcher I agree that panspermia doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is a valid theory about how it came to planet earth. Now, saying it came from another planet and saying God did it are two diferent things. In one you're saying it was born somewhere else and you don't how and in the other you're saying life magically appeared because our big daddy got bored and wanted something to do...
Suppose that in 'reality' intelligent life is only just emerging, as the 'World Wide Web' ...and Human life is an intermediate stage. perhaps even a stage that eventually becomes redundant? and surplus to requirements!
Data speak for themself if you kinow how to interpret them (becouse you know about more data) and you know exactly where data came from. The complexity science has evolved to made this all verry ,yes complex.
The begining of universe might nog be a single event. If you create (the C-wordt) the same situation our univese is coming from you might have a new big bang. This is just a bit dificult to do.
Where’s the answer to the origin of The Universe? All he was talking about was the probability of the earth and others to exist but nothing about the how this precise existence started?!
@sbergman27 You cannot dismiss God, unless you can in fact prove that our knowledge of causation is so extensive that they can confidently and positively be proven, and that is an impossibility. Modern science even concludes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. If God made the universe, he also made the laws of nature, and he can alter them. Science becomes arrogant, God shakes the tree. .Now Quantum physics, Gods Scvience, may be as Feinman said a distant dream.
But... We HAVE been visited. Frequently.
I think there are definitely many other planets that have life. The life in some of those planets are primitive, but there are also advanced extra-terrestrials in other planets who are more advanced than humans. I also think that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth in the past and maybe even now. I also think that Evolution and Abiogenesis are both correct.
@joeturner9219 Yes
@wHisperis001 In his book? You mean the books he wrote before he became a Christian. Francis S.Collins: " Why this scientist believes in God" He is the director of the Human Genome Project and a former Atheist . He also wrote "A Scientist presents evidence for belief" He said DNA is the information molecule in all things, and he is now convinced as Gods plan. If you have anything give the name of the book otherwise its just the same old Atheist propaganda as usual.
Was this done before water was discovered on the moon?
If water can be on the moon and it's a little closer to the sun than us. Why isn't there anything else or why hasn't it boiled off??? It's had billions of years to evaporate according to evolutionary theory.
🌚 u gotta learn basic cosmology !
@sbergman27 Atheism violates the laws of mathematics.Faith is required for all humans. Anything that you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle, you can assume but cannot prove. No statement can prove its own truth. You always need an outside reference point. Faith and reason cannot exist one without the other. All reasoning ultimately must trace back to faith in something you cannot prove.
@TomFynn okay
@sbergman27 This should be on a plaque.
Well I do get rather angered when you derogatorially and sarcastic address us as a lot and say you are going to be complicated and state two sentences. Leave your demeaning ways out of intelligent discussion. I'm asking you, what could you possibly base your belief that there has to be a why on. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, no evidence for us having to have a purpose to be here, so what do you base your beliefs on? Feeling? Upbringing?
Fermi has entered the chat
Time 2:06 reference to the goldy locks zone. About the water boiling off if we were any closer?????? The moon is closer.....water was discovered on the moon..... Why hasn't it evaporated off already??? And since it's there, why isn't there any life of any significance??? Do you understand what double standards are??? Double talk?? Circular reasoning?? Get a clue.
I wonder if he ever gets bored of having to counter the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
If only religious people would look some shit up for themselves...
@sbergman27 And you spoke of a " complex creator" and orders of magnitude, and the goal to explain the universe? . Are you attempting to ignore the fact that this entire universe, the beginning of life, consciousness, and the entire gamut of trillions of situations that are necessary to support our existence are in fact MORE complex than we will ever explain. If the simplest answer is usually the right one (Occams Razor) then God is that answer.
maybe we haven't been visited because it's too friggin' far apart.. It can't be all like Spore (R).
thulsadoom31 :
Learn to read...
I said I USED your words.
And when I said:
"And you are flippant....
and odiously deluded. "
... That is simply the way you project yourself ... your problem, not mine.
Consider that how so ever you choose.
Against astronomical odds,...given the singular permutivities of biomolecular,geophysical,and helioseismological stressors occurring in failed fits and starts over countless eons??Oh yes---at last:LIFE
Dawkins is suppose to be the expert evolutionist. You can't say evolution is the answer to how life evolved and then talk about how life started, without the inference being made. Evolution is portrayed as the answer to life, but talk about origins and all that it intels and suddenly you want to cliam it has nothing to do with evolution. So, it's nothing but double talk.
Evolution deals with changing of species from simple to complex not the origin of life .thats biochemistry mate
Lol nope
@TomFynn dunno why you're asking me, ask collins...
thulsadoom31:
PaxTorumin eloquently pre-empted my response with his comment to me (starting with "Sadly..." - most appropriate). It is not in my nature to be as polite with waffle-mongers such as yourself.
And..
The statement:
"According to classical theism, God is a necessary being..." presumes a conclusion - that got exists. How you fail to understand that defies belief.
It's like getting almost an unlimited amount of guesses for the lottery. All the other planets in our solar system have failed, and mostly in the universe the "guesses" have been wrong. But in this one case we are here. And how lucky of us the be here on this planet to prove lifes existance? We are life on this planet, That is very illogical to make it mysterious.
Yes, I know. It takes some intelligence to understand what he says:)
@wHisperis001 Whoa, cool it, we're on the same page here. I stand corrected, okay?
Exactly, check out all of today's narcissistic, greedy scientists lacking critical thinking because they are blinded by their arrogance. Yes indeed. Sadly.
And this comes from a student of the natural sciences. I love biology, theology and astronomy. I have studied 2 and I am on the way God willing to study and discover the third on my list.
You love astronomy but it's all bullshit
Ah ,bullshite
All philosophical thoughts no more no less. Anyone can propose otherwise 🤷🏻
@sbergman27 The volume of the earth and all of that universe, and you try to equate that this somehow makes us vain to believe it was created. In all that space and so many years here we are on this tiny speck discussing that creator. Are you so foolish and vain to think this is an accident?
@sbergman27 Most likely there are some other races of beings out there who think--or who have thought--the same thing at some point during their history. Then they evolved.
You seem rather angered there..
Nothing happens for no reason.
There is no such thing as a coincidence.
I seem to be leaning to the notion (at the moment) that Micro Evolution ( NOT Macro Evolution- the bollocks about the world and it's lifeforms all stemming from nothing and a near impossible explosion of matter along with all the laws of nature and physics- thats all seems ridiculous) is HOW GOD created the world to be as it is nw. He set all these amazing Laws of life into action.
I
"Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other." Leads to the other, exactly, and you say evolution is fact without solving or proving the begining. The only evolution is micro-evolution, which could also be called adaptation. It doesn't prove a fish can become a lizard or something like that. See, I knew you understood me, you....playing dumb.
Derp
@IconOfSin88
Well, that settles it then.
I'm an open minded person and find his answer to the question not convincing at all, let's assume that earth is originated by chance, can you convince me how a such a sophisticated life structure , let’s say like a DNA cell, got formed ? , I find it highly improbable that sudden reaction of cells created this sophisticated life structure, even us human cannot for the past million year create it in a lab, there are many life on this earth that cannot be the chance of probability and evolution
Musk's simulation hypothesis is like a Python-esque crushing foot onto all of this.
no, wtf?
@@xvhkgreen6297 A simulation could be any age and have started at any point in apparent history.
No it isn't . Musk is out of his depth here
Dawkins makes some sense here....finally.
what if WE are technologically poor form of life ?
What if we are the most advanced ?
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 We are perhaps not the most advanced in the universe.
@sbergman27 When you consider all that universe and our minimal place in it, consider that here you are contemplating the creator of all of that. Are people so foolish as to think that in those 70 thousand million trillion stars you mentioned, why are you here contemplating the creator. If you consider that to be just an accident, then that is truly foolish. So thats one hell of an accident isnt it? If this planet suffers, its because we are ignoring the reality instead of accepting it.
@sbergman27 Your reporting on emperical observation? How, when there is none in creation. Do you even know what emperical observation is??? We have theories when we have no real proof, otherwise its fact. Emperical observation is when we can directly observe or experiment directly on the subjects. So your trying to claim you were there during the creation and observed it? LOL, was that a joke. Have you ever done stand up comedy , you would be good at it.
Soph Mega look up the scientific use of the word theory, it's not the same as the colloquial use
@wHisperis001 Ah, the argument from authority. Still alive in this day and age, I see.
You need to talk to discovery channel then. They portray evolution as the begining of life. And like I said you can't have it both ways. Double talk!!!!!!
@Sophmega "In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design". Straight from wikipedia. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
thulsadoom31:
Truth ??
Plantinga ?
... I took the time to read that old man's semantic gymnastics - utter nonsense.
Anyone who bases an argument with an assumption of correctness has no sense of reality:
Quote:
"According to classical theism, God is a necessary being...
according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex"
... basing premises on such pre-conceived conclusions defies all sense of reason and sensibility.
You realize Dawkins addresses this very point in his book. This line of thinking would be acceptable if no scientific advances had been made in the last 50 years.
Mars is the next earth
mars might have been an earth once before
Correct
Pax:
Persuading religious fruit-cakes of the benefits of a rational oulook based on the little we actually know of reality is akin to teaching a worm to sing the 'Ave Maria' backwards.
Mr. thisisdoom31 has the dubious distinction of contributing the first comment here, 4 months ago, and has been babbling a myriad of nonsenses since...
Thou wasteth your time ...
Dawkins has mocked theist for suggesting life came from space so what has changed his tune ? we have been visited but people like Dawkins or Shermer debunk it
***** I was annoyed with Dawkins for distorting science to fit his atheism but now I just feel sorry for him and those that follow him down this darwinian agenda, they are devolving, did you know he works with SETI, no wonder they have found nothing
give one example of Dawkins distorting science to fit his atheism. I would suggest that what's really happening is that your religion has distorted what you consider science.
Never been to church or read the Bible but have a love of science and have found Dawkins distorts science by changing the words he uses, Dawkins has mocked the idea of life being designed by a more intelligent life form, has claimed the cell evolved from inert materials and much more with the added claim that science has proved these things, much of what Dawkins has claimed over 30 yrs has turned out wrong and in debates with scientist that specialize in DNA and rotein design laughs at the idea codes may have been designed at the start of life, he believes they bumped together in the dirt until they made a protein
You are grossly mischaracterizing abiogenesis and misrepresenting Dawkins. He NEVER claimed the cell evolved from 'inert' materials since chemical reactions are required for all biogenic processes. That is either a blatent lie or a misquote. Dawkins may have used the term 'prove' colloquially, since science' can never prove anything absolutely, but the evidence supporting evolution of organisms, both unicellular and multi-cellular, is enormous, and there is SIGNIFICANT reason to believe that abiogensis is a perfectly reasonable and viable explanation for the beginnings of life on earth backed up by current science and recent experiments.
There is absolutely NO evidence to presume that there is higher intelligence involved in the creation of life and most assertions to that end are nothing more than fallacious argument from ignorance. Because we don't fully understand how life began does not in any way suggest we can presume it must be 'created' by some unknown intelligence. That position is absurd. Maybe the bible isn't the irrational thing you believe in, something equally silly perhaps.
If someone presented the idea that DNA codes may have been designed as scientific I would laugh as well because there is NO EVIDENCE to support such a proposition. Therefore it is decidedly unscientific.
He follows Darwins theory and evolution as taught in all public schools for last 80 yrs, Dawkin has said life came from inert materials naturally in many interviews, I will give you some advice, go watch all of Dawkins claips and debates where he is talking with other real scientist, now he is pushing multi-universes and that the universe came from nothing to kids, even his out of africa theory is debunked on latest findings, he is always wrong and wont allow another view
Arre kehna kya chahte ho
A cart full of FOOLS: Edward Harshaw, mohamed nasef, James Bell, imnojasontodd, Jinhong Tam, Nathan El, m beginization; Standing room only, it is crowded.
I remember once learning in middle-school that one theory of life was that microbes from another planet seeded the earth. But then the immediate question any child would've asked which I did was, well, how did those originate?
The former theory possible DOES NOT explain the origin of life, it just transfers the problem. Just like saying God did it.
@MovieFusionist Please don't mention probes....lol
It would be nice if we defined the word 'Life' first.