 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins and the design of Life... |
|
Page 3 of 16 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14, 15, 16 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Silberstein... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcj0is$9u5$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
[/quote]
OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
[quote]Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
[/quote]
Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
he means something other than what you mean.
[quote]Rather than say that life is merely designed,
[/quote]
He does not say that.
[quote]Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
[/quote]
No, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
[quote]Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
[/quote]
Huh?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:02:51 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcjtd3$fif$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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]
When you find some non-physical behavior let us know.
(And, please, learn that use/mention distinction. No, behavior is not
a description, but he did not say that behavior was a description.
Description is a thing that humans do, we describe things in the
world.)
--
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 |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:12 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]
I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
[/quote]
He has a large metal blueprint.
He smacks it down on a small life form (a bug for EG) or a small non
life form (a rock for EG).
When he looks underneath the metal blue print, it has either a
squished life form or a dent (non life form)
Iv'e tried it and it works. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nomen Publicus wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Behaviour isn't a physical description.
Life is a process.
[/quote]
Process isn't a physical description either. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:02:51 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcjtd3$fif$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
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.
When you find some non-physical behavior let us know.
[/quote]
Theft, murder, partying, sailing, singing, etc. All these are not given
through a physical description. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
polymer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones 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.
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about
using it in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
[/quote]
Design always implies a designer. Dawkins must say where he gets his
design for life from. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcj0is$9u5$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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.
OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
[/quote]
I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
[quote]
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
he means something other than what you mean.
Rather than say that life is merely designed,
He does not say that.
[/quote]
Yes I know. I meant to say "Rather than merely say that life is not
designed,"
[quote]
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, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
[/quote]
If Dawkins says that God didn't design life, then he must say who
designed it. Because, obviously, Dawkins sees a design of some sort.
[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.
Huh?
[/quote]
Where does Dawkins get his blueprint for life if the blueprint is not
found in nature? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nomen Publicus... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:52 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:
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.
Life is a process.
Process isn't a physical description either.
[/quote]
Life isn't a physical thing.
--
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail. -- Gustaf Lindborg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| polymer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:06:49 +0000, John Jones wrote:
[quote]polymer wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones 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.
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about using it
in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
Design always implies a designer.
[/quote]
Lie. It can be, and is commonly, used in other ways as well.
Dawkins is completely clear that he is using it in a way that
does not imply a designer.
Your 'philosophy,' if it can even be called that, consists
of nothing of word games.
[quote]Dawkins must say where he gets his
design for life from.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| polymer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:29:16 -0800, Errol wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 1:12Â pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
He has a large metal blueprint.
He smacks it down on a small life form (a bug for EG) or a small non
life form (a rock for EG).
When he looks underneath the metal blue print, it has either a squished
life form or a dent (non life form)
Iv'e tried it and it works.
[/quote]
Jonesie has a blue print, too:
1) go to a dictionary and find a term,
2) find some writer who uses that term in a way
that does not exactly match that of the dictionary,
3) declare writer's work invalid because of the misuse
of the term,
4) lean back and feel satisfied in being the first
genius to find the writer's fatal mistake. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:05:24 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcmed8$n5r$3 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:02:51 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcjtd3$fif$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
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$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Behaviour isn't a physical description.
When you find some non-physical behavior let us know.
Theft, murder, partying, sailing, singing, etc. All these are not given
through a physical description.
[/quote]
All of those are physical things. We can describe them as well. But I
don't grasp what you might mean by "given through a physical
description". I know the meaning of each of the words, but together
they make no sense.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:06:49 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcmefu$n5r$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
[quote]polymer wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones 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$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way: Rather than say
that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that life is not
realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about
using it in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
Design always implies a designer.
[/quote]
If design requires a designer, then you have to show the existence of
the designer.
[quote]Dawkins must say where he gets his
design for life from.
[/quote]
Evolution. He says that quite clearly.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:12:50 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcmer7$sus$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcj0is$9u5$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> 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.
OK, so show there is such blue print for life or non-life.
I want to know what Dawkins blueprint is. He needs a blueprint of some
sort if he is to distinguish a life form from a non life form.
[/quote]
No, he does not. He is not using your meaning of the term. He, like
any biologist, distinguishes life from non-life by the behavior of the
system in question.
[quote]
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Dawkins is not talking about blueprints, so when he talks about design
he means something other than what you mean.
Rather than say that life is merely designed,
He does not say that.
Yes I know. I meant to say "Rather than merely say that life is not
designed,"
[/quote]
I still don't have a clue what you mean. Do you? Here is an easier
one, have you actually read Dawkins? I don't like his writings or his
arguments, but he is worlds above you and is pretty clear on these
issues.
[quote]
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, he would not be. Your conclusion makes no sense. I can't criticize
the logic because I don't see any logic presented.
If Dawkins says that God didn't design life, then he must say who
designed it. Because, obviously, Dawkins sees a design of some sort.
[/quote]
OK, you have no read Dawkins. He is pretty clear on this: we see the
traits we do because of evolution. He thinks that evolution is mostly
natural selection and he is wrong about that, but he is correct that
evolution is the designer. (There is nothing in your previous notion
of design that requires intent or willful action.)
I would argue that life looks designed because design (that thing that
humans do that we call design) is an evolutionary process. Design
differs from creation in that design is used to solve problems of
incomplete information and insufficient resources, design is done by
making incremental changes to existing solutions and trying them to
see if it works. IOW human design and biological evolution are both
examples of the same basic process.
[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.
Huh?
Where does Dawkins get his blueprint for life if the blueprint is not
found in nature?
[/quote]
I have no idea how to make that fit your previous words. You really
have a serious communication problem. And I do read modern
professional philosophy works.
--
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 |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nomen Publicus wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Nomen Publicus wrote:
In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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.
Life is a process.
Process isn't a physical description either.
Life isn't a physical thing.
[/quote]
That's right. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
polymer wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:06:49 +0000, John Jones wrote:
polymer wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:50:58 +0000, John Jones 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.
Dawkins uses the word "design" but is very, very clear about using it
in a very specific way that does _not_ imply a designer.
Design always implies a designer.
Lie.
[/quote]
Fraud.
[quote]It can be, and is commonly, used in other ways as well.
Dawkins is completely clear that he is using it in a way that
does not imply a designer.
[/quote]
Yeh, I can use the name of my aunty to imply she has a beard.
[quote]
Your 'philosophy,' if it can even be called that, consists
of nothing of word games.
Dawkins must say where he gets his
design for life from.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:58 pm
|
|