Richard Dawkins Ph. D.: "Aliens Seeded Earth?"

I am a Christian who believe that we Christians need to learn how to give our opponents more credit when they truly deserve it.

What Richard Dawkins Ph. D. states in this video....... is really quite brilliant... and in my opinion perhaps far closer to the truth on what scriptures say about the UFO phenomena than what is taught in many churches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4
Richard Dawkins: Aliens Seeded Earth?

- - - Updated - - -

Near death experiencer Christian Andreason adds some fascinating details to this question.

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

 

It has been clearly and decisively shown through experimentation and exhaustive testing at the facilities on Epsilon 16 deep in the tungsten clouds of the Zapton system in the Telipon quadrant, that What humans refer to as "Aliens" are in fact multi dimensional flecks of residue left over from the destruction of the pinprick planet which exploded in 13FXB when the trigon expansion began within Slendon membrane.

Dawkins is an evil man who stole the Assimilation handbook from XDJMKLYUJH: during a scout mission 2800 yrs. ago when he was only 560 in Hadron years. Christianity was developed to cover his alien nature by calling him "God"....it has been somewhat effective thus far.

 

Wow!!!!!!!

How did you know that Richard Dawkins Ph. D. had the soul of one of the Elohim within him?

Have you been a bad boy and been playing around with ketamine or dmt or something like that?

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

 

After reading this I don't think he's a true atheist. It seems to me that all he is doing is replacing one religion with another, except this time it's aliens.

Which pretty much discredits him.

 

A highly intriguing analysis Tram Law.

On the other hand....... several years ago somebody who terms themselves an atheist stated that my idea of a supreme being evolving and learning in infinite time previous to our Big Bang event...… could be considered a branch of atheism........ because a G-d who learns.... or evolves... does not meet the standard definition of God!


http://www.christianforums.com/t7648510/

Theistic Evolutionary Theory, could our Creator have evolved/learned?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After teaching English in Quito, Ecuador for over a year I returned home to Canada determined to be more socially and politically active. I ran for public office as an independent three times and joined one of Canada's Political Parties in 2009.

Here in Canada the provincial level of government has jurisdiction over education and i believe that it is possible to write up a number of variations on Theistic Evolutionary Theory that actually could end up being taught in schools within a few years or decades.

I personally could not write such a text book but this blog could be used to get some people together who could handle such a project.

Dogmatic Atheists Lack Mathematical Aptitude.

In a sense I am taking this verse in Genesis much further than it usually is taken:

Genesis 1:27

How does human life start?

Well, as a spermatozoa that could perhaps be compared with a Super String and with a ova that could perhaps be compared with Super Energetic Matter or Super Wave?!

 

It's just one of many theories that he posited. He used the modal auxiliary "could" several times, suggesting that it's merely a supposition and not something he necessarily believes in.

 

Except for one thing.

Belief in a higher being, while does not necessarily equates with Christianity or other religions like it, is pretty much the core of a religion.

scientists have found in ancient Neanderthal caves that they did have funerary rites. Funerary rights are an indication of the belief in a higher power and possibly an after life, which is, essentially, a religion.

I see this as something similar.

However, being inquisitive about the possibility of a higher power does not necessarily equal a belief in one.

 

You are clearly one of the most intelligent posters on this forum. Kudos

 

We find the building blocks of life very plentiful in the solar system:

Link -> Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'

With the building blocks of life plentiful in the Universe, the odds that the Earth is the only planet that contains life is astronomical. Alone, there are (link)8.8 billion Earth like planets in the Milky Way. Plus there are billions of galaxies in this Universe (we may even be part of a (link)Multi-Universe).

Now, the Earth was formed some 9 billion years (give or take a few million years) after the Big Bang. 9 billion years is a pretty long time for another civilizations to form. Whether or not an alien civilization seeded life here on Earth is debatable, but I wont dismiss the idea out of hand, based on how long the Universe has been around compared to the Earth.

 

Then again…… there is a possibility that Richard Dawkins Ph. D. sees a correlation between String Theory, The Cyclic Model of the Universe as explained by Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in Chapter 13 of "Stephen Hawking's Universe," (The Anthropic Principle)……with the Law of Complexity Consciousness and the Law of Probability?

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

Excellent post!

But…… combine all this with the unusual way that Super Strings and Super Waves and other particles seem to behave…… and we find ourselves looking at nothing less than a whole new can of worms?!

.http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm

 

I believe in a vastly higher power………. but I have reason to believe that the vastly higher energy life forms have given to us ultra low energy four dimensional space - time entities formed in His/Her image an astonishing level of authority over how the universe is ran and how the injustice and evil that dominates this earth will slowly but surely be cleaned up.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research32.html#a03
3. The Future is Not Fixed and Can Change

One of Margot Grey's NDE research subjects stated:

NDE experiencer Howard Storm was given information on how the future is not fixed:

Howard Storm was also told how a single person can change the world:

During Ricky Randolph's NDE, he was told virtually the same thing:

Dannion Brinkley was told how the future is conditional upon human beings:

Brinkley was also told that the future is not cast in stone:

Brinkley also gives the following advice on how people can change the world:

 

Your logic has one fundamental flaw here. That is the assumption that those building blocks equate to the emergence of life. IOW, I can find the building blocks of my laptop abundant through out the universe.. exponentially more than the ones life forms(as we know it) are made of. But that doesn't mean I gonna find laptops all over the universe.

Where did you get that number? Most scientific circles age the Earth @ 4.5 billion.

 

What he means by this is that the most recent Big Bang event could have been 13.72 billion years ago……(or 14+ depending on who you read an article from)……. add nine billion years to the formation of the earth…. and you have an earth less than five billion years old.

My belief is that intelligence began in fundamental energy essentially an eternity ago and a nearly infinite number of Big Bang events were planned and choreographed……….


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a05

An infinite number of Big Bang events is exactly what Stephen Hawking Ph. D. wrote about in chapter 13 of his book "Stephen Hawking's Universe." That chapter was entitled "The Anthropic Principle."

 

That is correct. However, as long as the ingredients are there for life, there is the chance of Abiogenesis:

[video=youtube;U6QYDdgP9eg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/video]

You needed to read just a bit further:

Big Bang happened 13.5 billions years ago
Earth Formed 4.5 billion years ago.

That 9 billion. The Earth formed about 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

 

Oh, OK.. I read his post wrong. My bad.

 

Ref. Post #1: So space aliens built interstellar space ships, loaded them up with trilobites, and whizzed around the galaxy dropping them off into various oceans. Sounds legit!

 

The vid is a nice dramatization, but I've always had trouble reconciling abiogenesis to be just a chemical consequence. A hallmark of life is its protectiveness to the environment. As all chemical processes we know of are strictly reactive. If abiogenesis is a chemical consequence, then it should be still observable today taking place. IMO, abiogenesis needs the introduction of information. Programing if you will, to be proactive to its environment and allow the emergence of consciousnesses. If science ever shows how information can emerge through abiogenesis, I'd be on board with the theory 100%

I just read your post wrong.

 

The (link)Miller–Urey experiment is fascinating because of this:

I think this shows that life forming from inert matter is a long process that may never be able to be replicated in lab.

 

A guy made an artificial living leaf.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2710518/One-giant-LEAF-mankind-Artist-creates-living-man-foliage-help-humans-colonise-space.html

 

I'm somewhat familiar with the M-U experiment. IMO, it only demonstrates possible processes on how some organic compounds can synthesized.

That's what computer models are for.

There was a video I saw many years ago where they modeled a simple life form (basically just a box shaped organism) and environment for it to exist in. They gave it a simple code to replicate and evolve to be able to perform locomotion. It was amazing to see what this simple cube shaped organism transformed it self into thru successive replication.

Wish I could find that video, but it has eluded me for a long time now.

 

If you find it, please post it!

 

Thats some cool sheet right there!

 

I will definitely post it. It really demonstrated a plausible mechanism behind evolution. I've had trouble reconcile the conventional thinking that evolution is a result of random mutations favored by natural selection. The simulation showed with the introduction of an informational component, evolution by natural selection is far more plausible. Because it allows for life to be proactive to its environment through adaptation.

 

You really need to write Science fiction tecoyah, you're really good at it. lol