• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Dawkins says that Intelligent Design, "could come about in the following way:"

"Gee, I just don't understand black holes. They must be caused by anchovies on pizza"

- Not any better or worse than seymour's creationism "argument". You could swap anything in for "therefore God."
 
Mr Person said:
Yet another stupid BS thread trying to push creationism?

(And "have to read"? lol. You claimed to have read a book but just talked about excerpts from the preface that you misunderstood)







Argument from ignorance. Boy, you sure sound like someone else.

"I don't get it, therefore creationism" has to be the dumbest thing I've heard. Swapping "intelligent design" in for "creationism" just makes it all the more dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yes I also find this attempt to rearrange the creation myth dishonest. Adam and Eve was at least pure as far as a religion is concerned. Either the Bible is the word of God or it is not.
 
seymourflops said:
"That designer could well be . . . a higher intelligence . . . "



There you have it.

Space aliens.

They may have "designed and seeded a form of life onto this planet."

And that's why we dumb humans can't figure out how the first self-replicating molecule came about.

Space aliens
could have made them!

I have to read The God Delusion, now. I'm guessing there will be delusion in that book, alright.
Click to expand...

What strikes me as odd is that he believes that a belief in aliens is far more reasonable than a belief in God.
 
watsup said:
Abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
Tell me how that works?

According to the scientists.

Also share any evidence you've seen for abiogenesis?
 
iguanaman said:
It is a possibility and that is why we search for life on other planets. It is not a necessity though. There is enough evidence that life could have happened spontaneously that it cannot be ruled out.
Click to expand...

What is some of the strongest evidence that life happened sponteously?
 
The Baron said:
What strikes me as odd is that he believes that a belief in aliens is far more reasonable than a belief in God.
Click to expand...

It’s not unreasonable. For one thing, the key word is “belief”. He does not personally “believe” in either, but he acknowledges that aliens “could” exist because we know that there is life in the universe based on our own example as evidence, but there is ZERO objective, reality-based evidence for a “God”, so why on Earth would anyone actually “believe” in such an entity?
 
seymourflops said:
None.

If its all just guesses I prefer mine.
Click to expand...

If it's all just blind guesses, I prefer to say, "I don't know" rather than make something up.

But, I think there is evidence out there that suggests the scientific answer is at least worth consideration.

I'm glad you admit that there is absolutely no reason to believe what you're claiming, however.
 
Drowning Man said:
If it's all just blind guesses, I prefer to say, "I don't know" rather than make something up.
Click to expand...

Again that's what Dawkins should have said.

But, I think there is evidence out there that suggests the scientific answer is at least worth consideration.

I'm glad you admit that there is absolutely no reason to believe what you're claiming, however.
Click to expand...
What's the evidence?
 
watsup said:
It’s not unreasonable. For one thing, the key word is “belief”. He does not personally “believe” in either, but he acknowledges that aliens “could” exist because we know that there is life in the universe based on our own example as evidence, but there is ZERO objective, reality-based evidence for a “God”, so why on Earth would anyone actually “believe” in such an entity?
Click to expand...
If allowing for the possibility that aliens could have seeded planet earth isn't absurd enough, that possibility only pushes back the much, much larger absurdity - namely that life sprang up on its own anywhere.

Dawkins makes the mistake of infinite regression that in some other place, in some other time, with some other resources, some other planet spawned some other alien life on its own without cause - implicitly acknowledging that yeah, self-creating, organized, self-replicating information is kinda not happening here. But, sure, it could happen on planet Kepler-452b and make its way to earth! Problem solved!

Of course neither fairy tale addresses why there is something rather than nothing.

But, but, but science!!
 
Mulefoot said:
If allowing for the possibility that aliens could have seeded planet earth isn't absurd enough, that possibility only pushes back the much, much larger absurdity - namely that life sprang up on its own anywhere.

Dawkins makes the mistake of infinite regression that in some other place, in some other time, with some other resources, some other planet spawned some other alien life on its own without cause - implicitly acknowledging that yeah, self-creating, organized, self-replicating information is kinda not happening here. But, sure, it could happen on planet Kepler-452b and make its way to earth! Problem solved!

Of course neither fairy tale addresses why there is something rather than nothing.

But, but, but science!!
Click to expand...

What is your problem with science?
 
seymourflops said:
Again that's what Dawkins should have said.
Click to expand...

Again, you really seem hung up on this. Why is it that you think I should have to answer for what Dawkins did or didn't say?

seymourflops said:
What's the evidence?
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

That's a jumping off point, anyway. Have at it. I doubt you're really all that interested, though. Seems like you've got an agenda to push rather than looking objectively at what is proposed.
 
Mulefoot said:
If allowing for the possibility that aliens could have seeded planet earth isn't absurd enough, that possibility only pushes back the much, much larger absurdity - namely that life sprang up on its own anywhere.

Dawkins makes the mistake of infinite regression that in some other place, in some other time, with some other resources, some other planet spawned some other alien life on its own without cause - implicitly acknowledging that yeah, self-creating, organized, self-replicating information is kinda not happening here. But, sure, it could happen on planet Kepler-452b and make its way to earth! Problem solved!

Of course neither fairy tale addresses why there is something rather than nothing.
Click to expand...

Recursive or self-contradictory. Take your pick. "God" and the like are in the second category.

Mulefoot said:
But, but, but science!!
Click to expand...

As opposed to, "But, but, but myths and fairy tales!!"
 
Drowning Man said:
Again, you really seem hung up on this. Why is it that you think I should have to answer for what Dawkins did or didn't say?
Click to expand...

You don't.

Another poster presented Dawkins as the answer to all objections to Darwinism and the destroyer ID theory. But that was based on one book that she's only read the title of.

The thread is about Dawkins' about face so I'm trying to stay on topic.

Dawkins' idea of intellectual debate is to say "IDiots" a lot.

en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

That's a jumping off point, anyway. Have at it. I doubt you're really all that interested, though. Seems like you've got an agenda to push rather than looking objectively at what is proposed.
Click to expand...
Not interested in Wikipedia as a source of scientific knowledge?

Guilty as charged!
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:

Hypotheses about the origins of life​

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...-earth/a/hypotheses-about-the-origins-of-life

Which is more probable? Life forming spontaneously or Eve being created from the rib of Adam? Those are pretty much the only choices.
Click to expand...
Crediting science with the discoveries of the complexities of even the simplest organism, I'll take the former.

Having said that, my faith doesn't really pivot on this kind of thing. Interesting topic though.
 
seymourflops said:
"may be?" You pit yourself against all the scientists who say there absolutely is a mysterious force?"

If it is mysterious, what is your proof that it is not intelligent?
Click to expand...

That's not how argument works. You cannot support an assertion by demanding proof that your assertion is false, not unless you've first proven the assertion.

My my my, you have done this before, haven't you? And recently, no?



seymourflops said:
I hope you're kidding.

EDIT

No I guess that is the strongest evidence huh?
Click to expand...

You're sitting there pretending that "gee, I dunno, what if? Can you disprove my what if?" is stronger. You don't get to speak.

:ROFLMAO:
 
Mr Person said:
That's not how argument works. You cannot support an assertion by demanding proof that your assertion is false, not unless you've first proven the assertion.

My my my, you have done this before, haven't you? And recently, no?
Click to expand...
I'm not making an assertion in this thread. Other than that Richard Dawkins claims Intelligent Design is possible as long as it's - you know - space aliens.


Mr Person said:
You're sitting there pretending that "gee, I dunno, what if? Can you disprove my what if?" is stronger. You don't get to speak.

:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Turns out that I do.
 
seymourflops said:
Im not pushing ID or anything else.

You do you.


I'm fine with you thinking that. I'm just saying that it makes further debate useless.
Click to expand...
Are you stating that there might be an intelligent designer of some kind?

If you are looking for like minded people then perhaps this is not a place for you. Why would debate be useless between two people of dissimilar views when the purpose of debate is to give and understand divergent views?
 
soylentgreen said:
Are you stating that there might be an intelligent designer of some kind?
Click to expand...

I've said that several times.

If you are looking for like minded people then perhaps this is not a place for you. Why would debate be useless between two people of dissimilar views when the purpose of debate is to give and understand divergent views?
Click to expand...
If you were willing to debate about intelligent design I would be happy to as I already am with several posters on here.

But If the best you can do is this;

soylentgreen said:
There really is no difference between a creationist and a ID proponent. Am ID follower is just a creationist who wraps their lies in a pretense of science.
Click to expand...

I see no point. I'm not going to make an argument for creationism just because you have counter arguments for that but not for ID.

i'm not about to beg you to accept that I "really" believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer rather than clinging to a literal interpretation of the monotheistic creation myth.

This is the place for me as you can see from the many people I've been having a debate with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom