ChatterBank2 mins ago
The Building Blocks Of Life
I told y'all years ago on AB (oh what quarrels we had on R.&S.) that the life on Earth had its origins 'out there', & that Dawkins & his followers were fools believing that life began here as a 'happy accident'.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think this has anything to do with Dawkins.
If Earth was seeded with life from elsewhere, then the elsewhere must have been where life came from. Elsewhere doesn't mean some spiritual plane, it just means somewhere in the universe where life kicked off before it did here.
Why do you, Khandro, feel qualified to call Dawkins a fool?
If Earth was seeded with life from elsewhere, then the elsewhere must have been where life came from. Elsewhere doesn't mean some spiritual plane, it just means somewhere in the universe where life kicked off before it did here.
Why do you, Khandro, feel qualified to call Dawkins a fool?
Atheist; //Why do you, Khandro, feel qualified to call Dawkins a fool?//
Firstly because he was an atheist, & secondly, in relation to this thread, because he believed that a few chemicals by a "happy accident" somehow managed to coalesce in the sun's rays to form the Earths first living cells.
Though I suppose to you he is a guru figure ?
Firstly because he was an atheist, & secondly, in relation to this thread, because he believed that a few chemicals by a "happy accident" somehow managed to coalesce in the sun's rays to form the Earths first living cells.
Though I suppose to you he is a guru figure ?
Khandro seems to be under the impression that Dawkins invented the notion that creationism is a load of bunk. He didn't. Despite the enormous influence of the church throughout the ages, rendering 'God' the status quo - and 'God' help anyone who disagreed - the idea existed long before Dawkins arrived to put pen to paper. I'm not sure Khandro has ever read Dawkins, but he needs to get past the idea that Dawkins is a guru - although that's a result of his penchant for espousing the words of others rather than thinking for himself I suppose. Khandro really isn't qualified to call Dawkins a fool.
If anyone wants links to past conversations - of which there have been many - they'll have to trawl R&S I'm afraid.
If anyone wants links to past conversations - of which there have been many - they'll have to trawl R&S I'm afraid.
n. Yes I've read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene' - that was sufficient.
Why he's also such a fool is he seems proud of the fact that when his young daughter remarked on how pretty the colours of the flowers were, he told her that they were not 'pretty', but coloured that way in order to attract certain insects !
I believe if are behind him in a corridor & you listen carefully, you can hear the cheeks of his bottom rubbing together as he walks along.
Why he's also such a fool is he seems proud of the fact that when his young daughter remarked on how pretty the colours of the flowers were, he told her that they were not 'pretty', but coloured that way in order to attract certain insects !
I believe if are behind him in a corridor & you listen carefully, you can hear the cheeks of his bottom rubbing together as he walks along.
Khandro; Dawkins gave his daughter another wonderful aspect of appreciation of nature. Understanding the reason that flowers have colours (i.e. the right colours attracted insects which pollinate the plants and thus makes the plants successful at reproducing and flousishing) does not detract in any way from their aesthetic appeal to humans.
The feeling of awe which comes from viewing the night sky might be for some purely because they think it was all made by a creator, but that is a simple awe which is missing the wonder of it all - the immensity and complexity which has come about through natural forces.
Snowflakes are beautiful, and they are also the result of physical properties of water and ice crystals. Snowflakes do not become less beautiful when an understanding of their structure is demonstrated.
I think it was Feynman (or Sagan?) who said that to him the physical explanation enriched his understanding and appreciation of natural beauty; it didn't diminish it.
The feeling of awe which comes from viewing the night sky might be for some purely because they think it was all made by a creator, but that is a simple awe which is missing the wonder of it all - the immensity and complexity which has come about through natural forces.
Snowflakes are beautiful, and they are also the result of physical properties of water and ice crystals. Snowflakes do not become less beautiful when an understanding of their structure is demonstrated.
I think it was Feynman (or Sagan?) who said that to him the physical explanation enriched his understanding and appreciation of natural beauty; it didn't diminish it.
Khandro, the idea of Panspermia (the rise of life or building blocks thereof elsewhere than on the Earth, and its later arrival here) is quite an old idea. One interesting aspect is that it would permit a much larger timescale for life to arise naturally than the time passed since the Earth's appearance, and that is thought to overcome some objections to evolution based on an insufficiency of time on Earth for it to happen.
God doesn't figure in such ideas at all.
God doesn't figure in such ideas at all.
