| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins idea of how Life arose... |
|
Page 2 of 11 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Stafford... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
[/quote]
Here is what Dawkins said about 'random' and evolution, "Mutation is
random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural
selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process,
guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and
which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process."
[quote]Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this?
[/quote]
Dawkins' argument is that if there is a creator, then it must be more
complicated than the created.
[quote]Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
[/quote]
WTF do you mean by sight?
[quote]Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
[/quote]
Do we so distinguish?
[quote]Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
Not me. I think Dawkins is a populist gad-fly mired in the ointment of
scienticism. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lars Eighner... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In our last episode, <hd1vqh$s1s$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
and talented John Jones broadcast on alt.atheism:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
[/quote]
Nonsense.
[quote]and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
[/quote]
Hello! This is the 21st century. Determinism was already beginning to
gather dust in the 19th century.
[quote]Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
--[/quote]
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* usenet at (no spam) larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
290 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:31 pm, haiku jones <575jo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
sigh>...
The ontological immanence of the ineluctable modality
neatly -- if trivially -- refutes all three of your objections.
I'm still surprised that in this day and age anyone
needs to have this explained to them.
[/quote]
LOL. It is not Welsh but you have neatly trumped John Jones' in his
own language.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Giga... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hd1vqh$s1s$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution, for
a development requires an intention,
[/quote]
=No it doesn't.
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
[quote]blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of random
events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
[/quote]
Unless they beleive in quantum theory, whichI'm sure he does.
[quote]
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that animals
therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is this? Even if
there is a real difference between causation and its objects, causation is
without sight but its objects have sight.
[/quote]
Whatever, why do I bother..
[quote]Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in
causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones wrote:
[quote]Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
Star bursts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
sigh>...
The ontological immanence of the ineluctable modality
neatly -- if trivially -- refutes all three of your objections.
I'm still surprised that in this day and age anyone
needs to have this explained to them.
LOL. It is not Welsh but you have neatly trumped John Jones' in his
own language.
[/quote]
What % of the UK population is wackadoodle fundamentalist, i.e., 6,000
year old Earth, etc. and is it increasing?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mitchell Holman... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonXXXX <Z at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote in news:pan.2009.11.07.13.03.29 at (no spam) erkonx.net:
[quote]On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones wrote:
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Star bursts?
[/quote]
Are those the candies with the liguid center? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Puck Greenman... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:22:42 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noemail at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]ZerkonXXXX <Z at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote in news:pan.2009.11.07.13.03.29 at (no spam) erkonx.net:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones wrote:
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Star bursts?
Are those the candies with the liguid center?
Isn't it the new name for Chewits?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mitchell Holman... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Puck Greenman <dubh_ghall at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hcjbf55u1bq0ib49oobv3b82b3o0ekcb0s at (no spam) 4ax.com:
[quote]On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:22:42 -0600, Mitchell Holman
noemail at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
ZerkonXXXX <Z at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote in
news:pan.2009.11.07.13.03.29 at (no spam) erkonx.net:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones wrote:
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Star bursts?
Are those the candies with the liguid center?
Isn't it the new name for Chewits?
[/quote]
Cum gum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Syd M. wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
You didn't argue against my point.
Your point is not worth arguing over, Dave.
PDW
[/quote]
woof |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
Oh, you realized that you were playing word games and misusing the
word "develop", yet you decided to poison the well *anyway*? And you
think that admitting this somehow does something for your case?
[/quote]
I didn't misuse the word "develop". A development is given through a
goal, and a goal is given through an intention. I argued that Dawkins
can't use the term "develop".
[quote]
And, no you did not. You offered "arose as a consequence of random
events" instead of "developed". The correct meaning of
"developed" (which encompasses non-intentional events) is not
equivalent to "arose as a consequence of random events". So you are
still playing word games. Silly word games, at that, but I guess that
is only to be expected.
[/quote]
You've miss-read me. The paragraphs I used represent different points of
view or ways of expressing the origin of life.
[quote]
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
You didn't argue against my point.
Actually, I did; you just missed it. If you had looked up at *just*
the right time, you would have seen the point sailing well above your
head.
[/quote]
Your argument was no more than that I am "poisoning the well". That's
your play.
[quote]
And quantum physics isn't pertinent
here as Dawkins and I are talking about macroscopic structures.
Sigh; QM is relevant because it affects atoms and molecules;
[/quote]
Yes, yes, and...
[quote]your
claim that there can be no "random events" ignores this.
[/quote]
I wasn't arguing for the existence of random effects, one way or the
other. I entertained it as a possibility of argument. I then examined
the outcomes.
[quote]It ignores
the effect of particle decay on changes to established molecules
(another random event). It ignores the result of brownian motion.
And, your final claim is nonsense, since, however it may be that life
began, the first life structures need not be (and as far as we know,
were *not*) "macroscopic". So *you* may be talking about 'macroscopic
structures', but if so, then you are playing word games, yet again.
[/quote]
Are you appealing to the idea that matter exists in a possible, rather
than a real state?
[quote]
But even assuming without conceding your continued misuse of language
and logic, your claims *still* don't follow. You did not simply offer
"arose" as a replacement for miused word "develop"; you offered "arose
as a consequence of random events" as a replacement for "developed as
a consequence of a mental intention by an actor."
[/quote]
It was a necessary consequence. Quote next time.
[quote]There is still the
notion of development as a consequence of deterministic physical laws,
*without* the mental intention of an actor, just like tropical storms
do every year. You poisoned the well, and you are still playing word
games.
[/quote]
A development is given through a goal, and a goal is given through an
intention. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Syd M. wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
You didn't argue against my point.
Your point is not worth arguing over, Dave.
PDW
[/quote]
your round then. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Conan the bacterium wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:30 pm, Brian E. Clark
brianecl... at (no spam) address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
In article <hd1vqh$s1... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com says...
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
Bee bew BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP
We're sorry, the assertion you have dialed is invalid.
Please check your logic and try again.
You know, I'd pay ten bucks to have written that.
Conan
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
[/quote]
Yeh. We know. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Syd M. wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Because neither he nor you actually know.
And 'goddit' is not an answer.
PDW
[/quote]
How about a password? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
raven1 wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Because Dawkins doesn't work in the field of abiogenesis research is
the primary reason
[/quote]
He's guessing then.
[quote]
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
No one argues that. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.
[/quote]
That's what I said.
[quote]
for a development requires an intention,
No, it doesn't.
[/quote]
ooh yes it does. Bye. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:39 pm
|
|