 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins and the design of Life... |
|
Page 1 of 16 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nic... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Oct, 20:10, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
[/quote]
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is somewh\t
higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of dental
sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill M... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
[/quote]
Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
non-life forms.
[quote]How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
[/quote]
Why do you believe that life forms have a design when the scientific
evidence
is that life forms have evolved from basic living cells?
[quote]Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life forms
(including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
[/quote]
This circular reasoning leads you no where!
[quote]So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
[/quote]
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nic wrote:
[quote]On 30 Oct, 20:10, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is somewh\t
higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of dental
sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear!
[/quote]
Just thought I'd reply to bring this post to the top of the pile for a bit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 12:20 am, Larry <no... at (no spam) home.com> wrote:
[quote]John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote innews:hcfson$945$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:
Nic wrote:
On 30 Oct, 20:10, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life
and non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and
non-life forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life,
consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a
distinction between life and non-life designs?
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is
somewh\t higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of
dental sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear!
Just thought I'd reply to bring this post to the top of the pile for a
bit.
Which pile??
[/quote]
The pile of shit that most Cretinists live on. On one hand, that much
manure might help their crops grow...but on the other, it's ironic
that they'd deny the biological reasons manure can actually help
plants.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in
news:hcfson$945$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:
[quote]Nic wrote:
On 30 Oct, 20:10, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life
and non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and
non-life forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life,
consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a
distinction between life and non-life designs?
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is
somewh\t higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of
dental sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear!
Just thought I'd reply to bring this post to the top of the pile for a
bit.
[/quote]
Which pile??
--
Larry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill M" <wmech at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in news:FxLGm.3410$Mg.172
at (no spam) newsfe01.iad:
[quote]Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
[/quote]
If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million years.
This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's intervention,
quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are immune from!
Perhaps he could kiss the infected victim on the lips for better effect and
evolutionary demonstration of his own immunity to evolved virii....(c;]
--
Larry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
[/quote]
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 4:29 am, "Bill M" <wm... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]"John Jones" <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
non-life forms.
[/quote]
And some are aware of the difference between life and life form. Just
lok how your form has evolved from the time of conception. Are you
still the you you were when you were twenty one, forty one, sixty one?
[quote]
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
Why do you believe that life forms have a design when the scientific
evidence
is that life forms have evolved from basic living cells?
Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life forms
(including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
This circular reasoning leads you no where!
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
[/quote]
This takes on a whole new meaning when you look at the atomic
structure of a 'rock and a hard place (being human of course;-)..
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:48 pm, panamfl... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 12:20 am, Larry <no... at (no spam) home.com> wrote:
John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote innews:hcfson$945$2 at (no spam) news..eternal-september.org:
Nic wrote:
On 30 Oct, 20:10, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
Not even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life
and non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and
non-life forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life,
consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a
distinction between life and non-life designs?
yes and the number of vetenary surgeons who commit suicide is
somewh\t higher in UK than would be anticipated, as are the number of
dental sugeons....
but the pay is oh so clear!
Just thought I'd reply to bring this post to the top of the pile for a
bit.
Which pile??
The pile of shit that most Cretinists live on. On one hand, that much
manure might help their crops grow...but on the other, it's ironic
that they'd deny the biological reasons manure can actually help
plants.
[/quote]
Being sentient, one can distinguish between biological and spiritual
(not religious) laws.
The power of the psychosomatic is top down, not bottom up.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 4:35 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article <Xns9CB5423633DEnoonehome... at (no spam) 74.209.131.13>,
Larry <no... at (no spam) home.com> wrote:
"Bill M" <wm... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in news:FxLGm.3410$Mg.172
at (no spam) newsfe01.iad:
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million years.
This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's intervention,
quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are immune from!
Evolve does not properly describe how viruses behave. They occur largely
at random as different geometries and their fundamental parts are
elemental. It is simply a matter of chance that we occasionally find
some so virulent (duh) that we become aware of their existence by
becoming ill. The other millions of viruses go unnoticed.
As an aside, sometimes I wonder if they don't fall into our atmosphere
from space. See articles by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. OK,
now that's digressing...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
The academics would have us believe they all came from the big bang,
or a least their ingredients did.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 5:46 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
[/quote]
Im glad you have been given a day pass to 'get out' again 
[quote]
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
[/quote]
How do you explain that difference to a person blind from birth.
[quote]Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
[/quote]
The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
BOfL
> Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 6:05 am, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:46 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Im glad you have been given a day pass to 'get out' again :-)
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
How do you explain that difference to a person blind from birth.
[/quote]
With a difficulty comparable to explaining sound to a person deaf from
birth .
However, infinitely easier than explaining consciousness to the
unconscious! :-)
[quote]Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.
[/quote]
Being only 50% Welsh and unusual to boot, I am able to recognize the
greyness that lies between all blacks and whites! (Including I and
We)
Zinnic
[quote]
Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <Xns9CB5423633DEnoonehomecom at (no spam) 74.209.131.13>,
Larry <noone at (no spam) home.com> wrote:
[quote]"Bill M" <wmech at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in news:FxLGm.3410$Mg.172
at (no spam) newsfe01.iad:
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million years.
This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's intervention,
quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are immune from!
[/quote]
Evolve does not properly describe how viruses behave. They occur largely
at random as different geometries and their fundamental parts are
elemental. It is simply a matter of chance that we occasionally find
some so virulent (duh) that we become aware of their existence by
becoming ill. The other millions of viruses go unnoticed.
As an aside, sometimes I wonder if they don't fall into our atmosphere
from space. See articles by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. OK,
now that's digressing... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mitchell Holman... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Larry <noone at (no spam) home.com> wrote in
news:Xns9CB5423633DEnoonehomecom at (no spam) 74.209.131.13:
[quote]"Bill M" <wmech at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in news:FxLGm.3410$Mg.172
at (no spam) newsfe01.iad:
Making a distinction between life forms and non-life forms only takes
intelligent
observation. It does not require being a God!
If anyone has any problem embracing evolution, all he needs do is to
embrace someone with H1N1 EVOLVED flu virus to prove that evolution is
quite alive and well....every flu cycle for the last few million
years.
This years virus will EVOLVE its DNA, without some alien's
intervention, quite nicely into NEXT YEARS flu virus none of us are
immune from!
Perhaps he could kiss the infected victim on the lips for better
effect and evolutionary demonstration of his own immunity to evolved
virii....(c;]
[/quote]
Modern Creationist: Someone who is sure that evolution is
a myth but demands the latest advances from evolutionary
biology when HE gets sick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:17 am
|
|