 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins and the design of Life... |
|
Page 2 of 16 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 14, 15, 16 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Silberstein... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
[/quote]
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
[quote]Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life.
[/quote]
Huh? What is a "Dawkinian distinction"
[quote]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]
Again, you provide some of the finest poetry created by tossing
magnetic words against a refrigerator door.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, John Jones wrote:
[quote]Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
[/quote]
with an intention? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| raven1... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff 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]
WTF are you babbling about? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mitchell Holman <noemail at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns9CB548D703590noemailcomcastnet at (no spam) 216.196.97.130:
[quote]Modern Creationist: Someone who is sure that evolution is
a myth but demands the latest advances from evolutionary
biology when HE gets sick.
[/quote]
You can bet your ass he will.....(c;]
--
Larry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Larry wrote:
[quote]John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in
news: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 itchy one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
panamfloyd 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.
-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
[/quote]
Hello and woo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill M wrote:
[quote]Any intelligent person would and could distinguish between life forms and
non-life forms.
[/quote]
As opposed to what?
[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?
[/quote]
How do you recognise a life-form? You apply a design. A blue-print. A
design isn't a physical act.
[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.
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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
[/quote]
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 7:40 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 6:05 am, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
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.
With a difficulty comparable to explaining sound to a person deaf from
birth .
[/quote]
I thought you may have mentioned the unsighted could refer to sounds
that vary with the time of
day...but you missed it.
[quote]However, infinitely easier than explaining consciousness to the
unconscious!  .
[/quote]
Never tried to talk to a rock, so Ill have to take your word for
it.....
[quote]
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
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).
[/quote]
I guess the top half would be Welsh?
BOfL
[quote] Zinnic
Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 3:33 am, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 7:40 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:05 am, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
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.
With a difficulty comparable to explaining sound to a person deaf from
birth .
I thought you may have mentioned the unsighted could refer to sounds
that vary with the time of
day...but you missed it.
[/quote]
[quote]However, infinitely easier than explaining consciousness to the
unconscious! .
[/quote]
I guess I did miss your answer and a host of others! However, next
time give me a sporting chance and make it a multiple choice
question .
[quote]Never tried to talk to a rock, so Ill have to take your word for
it.....
[/quote]
Maybe not, but it is hard to believe you have not kissed the Blarney
stone!
[quote]Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
The Welsh are usually looking for such identity points.:-)
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).
I guess the top half would be Welsh?
[/quote]
Unlike you, I split it down the middle and commit neither to Welsh
or Anglo (and in general to neither black or white).
I leave you to find definitive answers through your big "I". For me,
it is enough to know there are none (er.... I think.).
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nomen Publicus... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
[/quote]
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
[quote]
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
[/quote]
--
Church: Local branch of The International House of Myths |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nomen Publicus wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
[/quote]
Behaviour isn't a physical description. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nomen Publicus... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Nomen Publicus wrote:
In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Behaviour isn't a physical description.
[/quote]
Life is a process.
--
Will not a filthy play, with the blast of a trumpet, sooner call thither
a thousand, than an hour's tolling of a bell, bring to the sermon
a hundred? -- John Stockwood, 1578 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| polymer... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8ml$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way: Rather than say
that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that life is not
realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
[/quote]
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about
using it in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
As usual, Jones, your philosophy
goes no deeper than playing word games.
[quote]
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:50 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
[/quote]
Do you have a template for dawkins? otherwise stop talking about him. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:41 am
|
|