"NASA and the Vatican agree that is almost mathematically impossible that we can

I don't know why he used "NASA" instead of "Science" or "Scientists", unless he was just trying to be provocative. As far as the statement goes, "a little help along the way" can mean a lot of things. You can interpret lightning striking the primordial soup to create life's building blocks, or a comet strike which covers the Earth in darkness to give mammals a leg up acts of God, I guess.

I was wondering that myself too. I think he made that up or grossly modified it. Evolution has been incredibly accurate on explaining life on earth and continues to do so; No need for fantastic B.S. stories. Loosely quoting Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".....

@ Macs “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan Fair enough, but maybe we need to look in extraordinary places to discover that evidence? And if it’s too extraordinary maybe only those deemed lunatics (like Darwin in his time) would accept it. When the Hindu Vedas and Upanishad texts were first translated into English, they raised more than a snigger or two when it came to the “Vimyanas” (flying machines) and “Iron Death” with its descriptions of blasted wildernesses, poisoned waters, dead birds and animals and utter desolation. Nowadays, planes and nuclear weaponry are routine. The Book of Enoch can be read either as complete fantasy, or actual events inadequately described. It was dismissed from inclusion into the Bible but nevertheless seems to pick up the story at Genesis 6.1 and 6.2. Worth a read in this context.

Almost mathematicaly impossible = possible. I can handle that humans are really really rare. That still means there could have been thousands of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

I take it as probably some more Ridley-speak which, I've noticed, often seems made up of one slight grain of some kind of, (not necessarily related), truth, that has been mixed with a generous helping some other plausible sounding stuff to make it seem important, where that stuff is either made up, or relates to something else completely and it has been a little rephrased to suit purpose and no-one dares contradict a bit of it: with the whole show finished off with a little seasoning of Such-and-such Hossenfeffer, sprinkled all over the top. I'm not so convinced it actually means anything, even 'though it sounds like it should. As has been pointed out, "a little help along the way", could be interpreted several ways. It seem obvious here, he is using it to support the idea of "external influence" - but, so what? Does that mean Nasa and the Vatican both agree that there was an influence and it was an alien intelligence? Or, that Nasa thinks the external influence was an asteroid and the Vatican thinks it was God - so that they both agree in principle, but actually believe different things? Excellent though he can sometimes be at his job and where respect is due for that, I try not to allow myself to think that everything Ridley Scott says necessarily has a value worth troubling my brain about, very much. He is a man who is a Director of films - that's it. He is not Ghandi. It might be mathematically, "almost", impossible that we can be where we are today without a little help along the way, but so what? That would just means it's improbable, from a single of our Human perspectives - what if the perspective of the Universe, if you like, as a whole, was completely different? What if the Universe doesn't operate in consideration of Human perspectives and what those perspectives determine Human expectations of what is probable and what is not probable, would be? I would suggest that, by the same token Scott employs, it is mathematically, "almost", impossible, by some incredible orders of magnitude, that [i]you[/i], (absolutely unique as you are and never to be repeated in quite the same way), should even exist at all, to be creating this thread - at odds of much more than 500 million to one against at conception and God knows every other coincidence that led to you existence that racks the zeros up, even more - and yet, despite all those, incredible, "almost", impossible odds: here you are. From a Human perspective, "mathematically", it seems absurd - [i]you,[/i] specifically, shouldn't even exist. But, you do. Personally, I do not look to Ridley Scott to answer with sense even one single piece of [i]that[/i] little puzzle.

We have life, we have evolution but what scientists and religious types cannot viably agree on is exactly how life started here on Earth. And as such there are many, many theories, but none of which are known to have actually occurred... - did it happen naturally - did it happen through design - if design whose, gods or another race - did it happen by accident, a comet, a chance event ...the list goes on and on, and we are no closer to the answer, Ridleys statement is just a way of saying "i took one of those possibilities and used it in a film", no more, no less.

Snorky's right on the money there. Science has a few thin theories about the birth of the original cells from which the rest of life would then have evovled; all of which are hotly debated and none of which is considered gospel. There are too man variables invovled and no theory to date adequately ties everything together short of failing in the face of sringent scientific inquiry. The problem with evolution, and it's not a bad theory, is that it's an imperfect theory that has had trouble supporting itself with the fossil record. There are massive gaps with very poorly defined connections between species. I'm not saying evolution is wrong, but it bothers me that it's held up as this end all be all explanation of life that constantly seems to need revision or rethinking for its failings. I'm a believer in God, and I have no issue in saying so, and that brings me to the original question and, hopefully, an answer to it: In believing in God, the natural world I see around me is his creation and science is no more or less than a means to understand as much of it as our feable minds can grasp. For the believer, science need not be an enemy, for to truly believe is too accept that nothing science uncovers can ever truly refute that belief. To fear otherwise is to reveal an insecurity about one's own faith. Ridley's vague prouncement may be too vague for its own good, but it certainly picks up on the real issue of what exists beyond our understanding. We act as though, with our science, we hold the keys to everything. Truth is...we've only scratched the surface and can't even begin to claim otherwise.

@Craigmore, evolution doesn't answer birth of single cell. Abiogenesis deals with the birth of cells from amino acids. Evolution is a fact, not just a theory. The branching of species from single cell is where the missing link is for many species that shares common ancestors. [list] - Birth of cell === abiogenesis. - Common ancestors to multiple species and their individual growth==evolution. [/list]

@ Sky, LOL, thats exactly what me and Craigamore said... Although Evolution is accepted there are gaps in the fossil record, which are probably just from us not finding them yet. And although abiogenesis is the birth of a cell, how and why did that process first begin. Scientists know much, but not as much as they claim, check my scientific theory thread for an example of that.

Exactly......thanks Snorky

@Snork, only problem currently that evolution faces is that the gap between the common ancestor and the current available species seems to be missing and will continue to as species go extinct without much leftover. For example, sparrows in my region have specific color near their neck region which is typical for regional sparrows and if they go extinct without much data for us, It would be hard for future generation to say that there was such sparrow to begin with, so that problem will be harder as time goes on with evolution. You can imagine how many other species and their ancestors can be debated this way as a missing link. As for abiogenesis, we may be able to figure out "How" in future considering the progress of scientific community today. I don't understand how it will answer "[b]WHY[/b]". If you assume external variables then "WHY" is not we are going to figure out, because if aliens, that contradicts religion and if comet, that contradicts some of the evidence gathered by historians. If we assume natural accident within chaotic universe, It will be again debated among science vs religion community. As for scientists claiming something-- that's hypothesis, even higgs bosson was hypothesis last few years. That's not excuse, that's how scientific method works. Verification - falsification. Point with abiogenesis is that once we replicate the process in artificial environment(which is highly unlikely cosidering the period of natural evolution in Billion of years), It would be easy or atleast close to easy to understand how it started.

@Snorkelbottom But that is not what he said. What he said appears to be substantially more than that - in what he actually said, he seems to give the impression that both Nasa and the Vatican agree on the same thing, [which is highly questionable, right from the gun], and, furthermore, he appears to says this in order to use that, alleged, "agreement", to confer a validity, by association, on the thesis of his Story - which he bases, largely, on Von Daniken and his Von-hypothesising: by so doing, Scott parlays NASA and the Vatican's, "agreement", [if they do agree on anything], into an indirect and generalised support for a theory of Ancient Alien intervention. That suggestion is probably artificial as I do not think it can reflect the actual truth of the matter. To me, that is questionable, "spin" - and, also, a little shabby. @craigamore An interesting and challenging area. I suspect a time may come when Humanity finds, to our surprise, that all roads converge.

LOL Sky we agree with you and you with us We know with an almost certainty that the human race evolved from apes, apes from simians, simians, from lemurs....keep going you get to prehistoric rodents that lived in T-Rex poo, themselves evolved from paramammals, evolved from reptiles, from amphibians, from lung/lobe fish etc. etc. what we are saying is no-one knows, and will probably never know exactly how life started on earth as there is no fossil record that far back, so we hypothesize. Now theories are all fine and well, but the scientific community are well known for throwing up theories that make no sense whatsoever, and not all of them get disproved, because they are looking in the wrong direction for some of the answers they seek. using dinosaurs as an example for over 100 years scientists were adamant that an asteroid striking the earth played absolutely no part in their extinction, and would scoff at the suggestion, until about 15-20 years ago they did a u-turn on the point. Same with birds having evolved from small feathered dinosaurs. As a race we are immature, and in some cases we have delusions of grandeur, believing we know the answers to everything when ultimately most of our "answers" are ill informed guesses.

The point where RS even brings mention of Vatican, turns me off with his personality. Since when Vatican became scientific method foundation?

[quote][i]We know with an almost certainty that the human race evolved from apes, apes from simians, simians, from lemurs....keep going you get to prehistoric rodents that lived in T-Rex poo, themselves evolved from paramammals, evolved from reptiles, from amphibians, from lung/lobe fish etc. etc.[/i][/quote] ---- Sorry to correct you but humans and ape share common ancestors, not that humans are evolved from apes. Thing is that the animals that you see alive today are missing in the links in between their grandfathers and the branched common ancestor. For example, we know that wolf and domestic dogs are related just like humans and apes but common ancestor between them is not found. So if the assumption of craig (If i get it correctly) based on the no clear connection between ape and humans evolution, that is total misunderstanding and not how the evolution worked. Missing link is - [u]common ancestor[/u], not between the animals alive that shows relations in between them. [quote][i]what we are saying is no-one knows, and will probably never know exactly how life started on earth as there is no fossil record that far back, so we hypothesize[/i].[/quote] This is where I picked craig's point of "we don't know, so evolution is imperfect". We know it and that's why we can say why it is so, not because it is imperfect. Evolution is in front of our eyes, not the missing link of speciation and abiogenesis. [quote][i]Now theories are all fine and well, but the scientific community are well known for throwing up theories that make no sense whatsoever, and not all of them get disproved, because they are looking in the wrong direction for some of the answers they seek[/i].[/quote] What do you mean by looking in the wrong direction? [quote][i]using dinosaurs as an example for over 100 years scientists were adamant that an asteroid striking the earth played absolutely no part in their extinction, and would scoff at the suggestion, until about 15-20 years ago they did a u-turn on the point. Same with birds having evolved from small feathered dinosaurs.[/i][/quote] I don't know which source you're quoting for that comet extinction theory. But there are historical records for civilization getting extinct due to comet dropping, flood and even due to earthquake and mountain lava expansion. Assumption of "All dinosaurus got extinct due to comet" is wrong, what's there to U-turn? that;s common disapproval. It's like saying all previous civilizations gone extinct due to wars, isn't it? Generalization in scientific community gets disapproved easily and maybe that's the U-turn you spotted. [quote][i]As a race we are immature, and in some cases we have delusions of grandeur, believing we know the answers to everything when ultimately most of our "answers" are ill informed guesses[/i].[/quote]I don't think so that we are immature. We stop thinking, experimenting and this is where we become immature. Point is not finding to answer of everything, but some specific things. Hell if it were to be finding answer to everything, world could have never came out of religion bubble. The reason we see computers today is because some people played with electricity. We didn't figured out electrical appliances while playing "answer to everything" game, it was to solve specific problem. That's science. Answer to everything is philosophical position, not scientific.

Sky, LOL - you are arguing with yourself - we agree with you. When I said, humans - apes - simians - lemurs, I was generalising, Its a saturday, been a hell of a week and I is chilling. yes the missing link has yet to be found, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Regards the Dino extinction - 50 years ago if you asked a scientists "did a comet/meteorite/asteroid play any part in the extinction of the dinosaurs" they would have laughed at you. But now scientists have open their minds to the possibility and genuinely believe such an event may have played a significant role. yes progress is good, but sometimes, like with above, scientists get "big-headed" and self righteous, and when that happens they look for answers to questions in the wrong places and thus come up with the wrong answers. Their human, they make mistakes just like the rest of us.

[quote][i]When I said, humans - apes - simians - lemurs, I was generalising, Its a saturday, [u]been a hell of a week[/u] and I is chilling. yes the missing link has yet to be found, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.[/i][/quote] I admit I lol'd. XD Sorry, but I noticed few gaps in the statements of you and craig and that's why picked them up. Dino extinction theory was based on crater sites like - Vredefort crater, so you know still we can't generalize because of limited craters around the world. As for another disagreement, last para about "immature species". I think it's not scientists that are "big headed" and "self righteous" but that's corporations and consumerism for you. I am from a country where scientific and philosophical or any type of idea was not patented until recent few decades when patent trolling slowed innovation around the world. So I know how come X type of scientists come across as "big headed". Anyway, wrapping up. Enjoy weekend :D

I'm still here but letting my brain chill Sky. And I agree with what said about corporations affecting science, but sometimes they do it to themselves as well. Obviously you are on the ball tonight, your brain is on fire, just try not to burnt out LOL

That "God of the gaps" argument is getting thinner and thinner as time goes by. With the advances on related fields to biology, the "gaps" issue is almost a non-starter, some argue that they are not even relevant. Some aspects can be explained without the need for fossils...

It's just marketing, because the movie is much more based on pseudoscience (Erich von Däniken premise) and on the other hand the Church is just a business, they only profit from the faith of the people and should adapt to time to keep up. I would not surprise me that in the future the church say that God is a creature from another planet.