See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #301
   On November 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm, chapoutier said:

   The point was that Dawkins is willing to believe in aliens, but finds God laughable.

   Even if that were the case, the ultimate point is:

   1) belief/nonbelief in aliens is, at the very least, falsifiable and thus can be scientific.
   2) that is still NOT intelligent design.

2. #302
   On November 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, purealchemy said:

   Hi! Monster thread guys?

   Burrito Belly was spared being Thanksgiving dinner.

3. #303
   On November 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   No, Chappy, listen to what Dawkins says about the intriguing possibility of intelligent design…

   Watching your “hero” go down in flames is tough especially when he lit the match!

   But I am done. Watch the video and see who said what.

4. #304
   On November 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, chapoutier said:

   But I am done. Watch the video and see who said what.

   I did. And you obviously have no idea what Dawkins is talking about. Dawkins says that the only way so called “intelligent design” on earth is possible is if an alien life form which he says must have specifically evolved in a “Darwinian manner” were to seed the earth with a custom made life form. But that is not what Stein’s or the popular Christian version of intelligent design is. Dawkins explicitly makes the obvious distinction between Intelligent Design being the genesis of life itself and intelligent extraterrestrial beings seeding life on earth. I understand you may be too stupid to recognize the difference. But it is a critical one.

5. #305
   On November 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   No, Chappy, that is not the only case. Dawkins’ argument simply kicks the can down the road one iteration. That you can’t see that is no big surprise.

   It is good to see that you remain the consummate moron. Some things never change. No surprise.

   Again, listen to what Dawkins says in the clips. Chappy and 0A will never admit what Dawkins actually said…

6. #306
   On November 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, chapoutier said:

   You are a retard, WE82. That or selectively deaf. That or don’t have any clue what “Intelligent Design” means.

   Take your pick.

   Intelligent design is an explanation for the ORIGIN of life. How life (all potential life, not just life on Earth) began in the first place. Dawkins did not say he believed in aliens. He said that that only way any sort of theory of “intelligent design” could be incorporated into a theory of life on earth is if aliens, WHO WERE ALREADY ALIVE AND EVOLVED THROUGH DARWINIAN MEANS, seeded life (WHICH ALREADY EXISTED IN THE UNIVERSE) on Earth. That is NOT what Stein means by Intelligent Design. That is not even close.

   God I have never met someone so purposely obtuse and ignorant as you.

7. #307
   On November 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, purealchemy said:

   YIPPEE!!!!

   The Monster thread guys are back!

   Now, where’s my Kingfish.

8. #308
   On November 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Nope, I am done. Chappy refuses to listen to what was actually said on the clip and calls me deaf. It takes some mental gyrations to attempt to make that point but Chappy will keep at it.

   Just go and listen to the clip for yourself. But I am done. Chappy, if you want to see the quintessential example of “purposely obtuse and ignorant” every time you look in your mirror. Such a putz you are…

9. #309
   On November 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, chapoutier said:

   But I am done.

   On that we agree. You jumped the shark into self-parody about 200 threads ago.

   No one with a scintilla of intelligence could claim, from what Dawkins says on that clip (edited or otherwise), that he says intelligent design is a possible explanation for the origin of life. Thus, WE82 is able to claim that Dawkins says that intelligent design is a possible explanation for the origin of life.

10. #310
    On November 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, MtsEdge said:

    In that clip, Dawkins clearly backed himself into a corner. He seems flustered by the calm questions about where these mysterious “self-replicating molecules” may have come from, so he invents the only possible reason available to him, since he denies the existence of God: that somehow life “evolved” somewhere else, then “designed” the life on earth! What utter nonsense! He really gets stuck when asked to explain how the life on the OTHER planet came into existence. It sounded something like: “I dunno…must have evolved from something else…”

11. #311
    On November 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm, zeroangel said:

    Yes, don’t believe what Dawkins SAYS ON-CAMERA!

    Riiight… then all of the gotchas that Micheal Moore got on camera must be true too!

    Pathetic.

    MtsEdge:

    that somehow life “evolved” somewhere else, then “designed” the life on earth!

    Except, Dawkins does not subscribe to this idea AT ALL and was only trying to be charitable.

12. #312
    On November 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Dawkins does not subscribe to this idea AT ALL and was only trying to be charitable.

    To whom?

13. #313
    On November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm, zeroangel said:

    MtsEdge:

    To whom?

    Ben Stein, who told Dawkins that the title was Crossroads and it was to be an unbiased documentary of the issues and was to fairly represent both sides.

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

14. #314
    On November 30th, 2009 at 6:44 pm, MtsEdge said:

    On November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm, zeroangel said:
    MtsEdge:

    To whom?
    Ben Stein, who told Dawkins that the title was Crossroads and it was to be an unbiased documentary of the issues and was to fairly represent both sides.

    Seems unlikely that he would try to be “charitable” by making himself look like a fool.

15. #315
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, zeroangel said:

    MtsEdge:

    Ummm, the interview was edited and cut to make Dawkins look a fool, obviously. Did you read the link? No of course you didn’t.

16. #316
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    …I should say, as much a fool as they possibly could, which isn’t much to anyone that understands what was being said.

17. #317
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, MtsEdge said:

    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, zeroangel said:
    MtsEdge:

    Ummm, the interview was edited and cut to make Dawkins look a fool, obviously. Did you read the link? No of course you didn’t.

    Sounds like you’ve just summarized for me the painfully obvious conclusion that Dawkins would have drawn. Thanks for saving me the time and effort to read it.

    P.S. I don’t need to read Dawkins’ whitewashing of his public buffoonery that I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. He might as well say, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”

    If he has a better explanation/response than what he gave to Stein, now is the time to put it up. Although, one would think he would have already considered this type of question many times before, and would have been better prepared to respond during an interview.

18. #318
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sounds like you’ve just summarized for me the painfully obvious conclusion that Dawkins would have drawn. Thanks for saving me the time and effort to read it.

    No. Here is a very succinct summary of the conclusions Dawkins drew. Only a simpleton like WE82 could conclude from that interview that Dawkins supported Intelligent Design in any way, shape or form.

    I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

19. #319
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:41 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Sounds like Dawkins thinks “something came from nothing.” Funny, creationists believe the same thing!

20. #320
    On November 30th, 2009 at 7:44 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sounds like Dawkins thinks “something came from nothing.”

    Except that is the exact opposite of what he said.

21. #321
    On November 30th, 2009 at 8:21 pm, zeroangel said:

    MtsEdge:

    Sounds like you’ve just summarized for me the painfully obvious conclusion that Dawkins would have drawn.

    Chap dealt with this easily by quoting the article you refuse to read.

    P.S. I don’t need to read Dawkins’ whitewashing of his public buffoonery that I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. He might as well say, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”

    Which is the difference between people like you and people like Chap and I. I will actively search out and read opinions contrary to my own and rebuttals of ideas I hold. You will willfully ignore them.

    If he has a better explanation/response than what he gave to Stein, now is the time to put it up.

    He has, many times in print and elsewhere, when he wasn’t being edited or cut.

    Although, one would think he would have already considered this type of question many times before, and would have been better prepared to respond during an interview.

    Riiight, just like those folks in Michael Moore movies!

22. #322
    On December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm, purealchemy said:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcIKnQxhCW0&feature=related

    Erin, my home girl.