The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:29 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:27 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  How the fuck did you get that from what I said? It is possible for life to evolve without intelligent humans being part of it, and this was actually the case on earth until the last million years or so. A billion years ago, was there evolved life on earth? Yes. Was there intelligent human life? No. I never said anything about excluding intelligent humans from the evolutionary process. If you think I did say that, you are fucking stupid. Or you are just wilfully misinterpreting everything I say, which makes you fucking dishonest. Either way, I'm done with you. If you can't have an honest discussion with someone without twisting everything they say into something they didn't say, you're not worth my time. Goodbye.

Just relax.

All this hate doesn't do you any good. It's already been established even by Chas that Dawkins believes in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, so like ... why the fuck are you even arguing about this?

I'm arguing about it because you are deliberately ignoring the huge difference between "possibility" and "near certainty", and pretending that they are the same thing. You have also done this elsewhere. You either don't know how to use the English language or you are being deliberately dishonest. I'm pretty sure it's the latter. Fuck you. I'm done with you.

It's not hatred. You are not worth my hatred. But you're not worth any more of my time either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  That depends on how you mean it. If you mean that "intelligent life" is "evolved life" then yes. If you mean that "evolved life" automatically implies "intelligent life" then no. "Evolved life" is just life arising through evolutionary processes. Bacteria are evolved life. Clams, sponges, lichens, etc are all evolved life. Intelligence is not implied by the word evolved.


if you mean this video, I watched from 28:00 to 40:00 and they discussed alien abiogenesis and evolution but not specifically intelligent life.

It is just after 13:50 that he says "I believe our galaxy is crawling with life" and goes on to say that it could still be rare. (Start at about 12:30 for the full context.) Does he say that again specifying "intelligent" anywhere afterwards?

My position on Richard Dawkins is based upon his quotes as a whole. I "know" that when he speaks of evolved life he is including intelligent life. How do I know? Well for fuck sakes ... you seen the video. You've read his other quotes. How much evidence is needed?

Since evolved life on earth includes intelligent humans, is it some great crime to think it can include intelligent alien life elsewhere?

I mean seriously guy ...

Blink

No, when Dawkins uses language, he uses it with precision. When he says 'evolved life' it means just that - he is not addressing the question of intelligence.
It is clear that he is not assuming intelligence or the lack thereof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are simply careless with your language. It is annoying.

No. You just don't like me any more. I am crushed. I am so crushed I am going out to by a brand new very expensive pillow just so I can cry on it.

'Scuse me while I kiss the sky ...

There you go again - assuming facts not in evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
What the watery sauce (Hell for FSM believers) did I start ? Y'all need to hug. Free, evolution does not "implicitly" lead to "sentience" in the way that we understand it. Mathematical probability does not equal proof. "Ancient Aliens" is a pseudoscience show that employs pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists to increase ratings. Dawkins entertained the possibility of ID to give Ben Stein something to chew on. But there is no proof.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  My position on Richard Dawkins is based upon his quotes as a whole. I "know" that when he speaks of evolved life he is including intelligent life. How do I know? Well for fuck sakes ... you seen the video. You've read his other quotes. How much evidence is needed?

Since evolved life on earth includes intelligent humans, is it some great crime to think it can include intelligent alien life elsewhere?

I mean seriously guy ...

Blink

No, when Dawkins uses language, he uses it with precision. When he says 'evolved life' it means just that - he is not addressing the question of intelligence.
It is clear that he is not assuming intelligence or the lack thereof.

Let me show you his quote again:

"Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

What does the "we" imply?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, when Dawkins uses language, he uses it with precision. When he says 'evolved life' it means just that - he is not addressing the question of intelligence.
It is clear that he is not assuming intelligence or the lack thereof.

Let me show you his quote again:

"Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

What does the "we" imply?

It implies that life on Earth is not the only life in the universe. "WE" in the sense that Dawkins said it, was not meant to represent humanity, but life as a whole.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:58 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Let me show you his quote again:

"Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

What does the "we" imply?

It implies that life on Earth is not the only life in the universe. "WE" in the sense that Dawkins said it, was not meant to represent humanity, but life as a whole.

But my point is- and I am sure you will agree- it includes us intelligent humans.

Hence, we- the intelligent humans - are not the only form of evolved life.

It implies that intelligent life is included.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 05:58 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Let me show you his quote again:

"Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

What does the "we" imply?

It implies that life on Earth is not the only life in the universe. "WE" in the sense that Dawkins said it, was not meant to represent humanity, but life as a whole.

But like a good (great) scientist, he used the term "unlikely". Meaning we don't know but the probability is high.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 06:05 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:58 PM)The Drake Wrote:  It implies that life on Earth is not the only life in the universe. "WE" in the sense that Dawkins said it, was not meant to represent humanity, but life as a whole.

But like a good (great) scientist, he used the term "unlikely". Meaning we don't know but the probability is high.

Yes!

Absolutely agreed.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 06:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 05:58 PM)The Drake Wrote:  It implies that life on Earth is not the only life in the universe. "WE" in the sense that Dawkins said it, was not meant to represent humanity, but life as a whole.

But my point is- and I am sure you will agree- it includes us intelligent humans.

Hence, we- the intelligent humans - are not the only form of evolved life.

It implies that intelligent life is included.

No it doesn't. We are definitely not the only form of evolved life. There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one. Intelligence and sentience as we understand it is only a possibility, not a given.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: