 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Applying Logic to Dawkins... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
So, in order for life forms to be re-identifiable, I need a design that
allows me to interpret elements as a life form. Describing life forms
through a necessary set of elements simply isn't enough; it isn't
"sufficient". Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Enkidu... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote]For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form.
[/quote]
Bullshit. Dawkins never said any such thing.
--
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
- George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:45:17 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcg1ao$hd7$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
[quote]For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form.
[/quote]
Not really, but OK. I think that by "Dawkins" you mean materialists.
If so, read up on physicalism, which seems to work a bit better. Read,
that is, if you are interested in knowing rather than posting.
[quote]For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
[/quote]
And how they are arrange and interact and so on.
[quote]This won't re-identify a bridge, however.
[/quote]
Re-identify? Huh?
[quote]To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
[/quote]
By "design" do you mean how they happen to be arranged? If so, that is
not what "design" means in this debate. Equivocation is not your
friend.
[quote]So, in order for life forms to be re-identifiable, I need a design that
allows me to interpret elements as a life form. Describing life forms
through a necessary set of elements simply isn't enough; it isn't
"sufficient". Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested.
[/quote]
More poetry.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Canzi... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hcg1ao$hd7$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
[/quote]
A bridge is a poor example to use to illustrate this argument.
A better example would be something alive, like dental plaque.
--
David Canzi | Every time you write clever code in
| production software, God kills a kitten. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| raven1... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:45:17 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
So, in order for life forms to be re-identifiable, I need a design that
allows me to interpret elements as a life form. Describing life forms
through a necessary set of elements simply isn't enough; it isn't
"sufficient". Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested.
[/quote]
We *told* you not to take the brown acid... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian E. Clark... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <r2toe55770v4q563788qt8g202m9grqqnc at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
quoththeraven at (no spam) nevermore.com says...
[quote]Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested.
We *told* you not to take the brown acid...
[/quote]
I'm beginning to suspect he keeps a supply of it in a
toothpaste tube, and brushes with it every morning.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pandeism Fish... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:37 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]David Canzi wrote:
In article <hcg1ao$hd... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
A bridge is a poor example to use to illustrate this argument.
A better example would be something alive, like dental plaque.
Ho.Ho. What a strain.
[/quote]
Let's say your right, and there is still an unidentified designer
behind everything.... the Biblical story of creation with man being
made of clay and woman from man's rib is still utter bullshit; Noah's
ark is an impossible, implausible, and easily disproven fairy tale;
Jesus never raised anyone from the dead, not was he resurrected from
the dead himself.... all you have is a possible Creator, that doesn't
prove up the laughable creation myths.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Enkidu wrote:
[quote]John Jones wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form.
Bullshit. Dawkins never said any such thing.
woof eroonee[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:45:17 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcg1ao$hd7$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form.
Not really, but OK. I think that by "Dawkins" you mean materialists.
[/quote]
Tonight, for this night olny.
[quote]If so, read up on physicalism,
[/quote]
Dunno. I can't be asked.
[quote]which seems to work a bit better. Read,
that is, if you are interested in knowing rather than posting.
[/quote]
I'm fine with what I wrote.
[quote]
For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
And how they are arrange and interact and so on.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however.
Re-identify? Huh?
[/quote]
Yes. A set of girders and ropes don't reidentify a bridge!
[quote]
To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design.
Why?
The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
By "design" do you mean how they happen to be arranged?
[/quote]
No. "Design" refers to "they". It's parts don't identify it.
[quote]If so, that is
not what "design" means in this debate. Equivocation is not your
friend.
So, in order for life forms to be re-identifiable, I need a design that
allows me to interpret elements as a life form. Describing life forms
through a necessary set of elements simply isn't enough; it isn't
"sufficient". Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested.
More poetry.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Canzi wrote:
[quote]In article <hcg1ao$hd7$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
A bridge is a poor example to use to illustrate this argument.
A better example would be something alive, like dental plaque.
[/quote]
Ho.Ho. What a strain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pandeism Fish wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 11:37 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
David Canzi wrote:
In article <hcg1ao$hd... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form. For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however. To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design. The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
A bridge is a poor example to use to illustrate this argument.
A better example would be something alive, like dental plaque.
Ho.Ho. What a strain.
Let's say your right, and there is still an unidentified designer
behind everything....
[/quote]
I'm NOT talking about an implementation of a design. I'm just talking
about a DESIGN. Please, everyone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:35:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
<hcivmi$33u$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:45:17 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcg1ao$hd7$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
For Dawkins, all he needs to do to describe a given life form is to
describe the set of elements that make up that life-form.
Not really, but OK. I think that by "Dawkins" you mean materialists.
Tonight, for this night olny.
If so, read up on physicalism,
Dunno. I can't be asked.
[/quote]
You can be, but you seem unwilling to affect your ignorance.
[quote]which seems to work a bit better. Read,
that is, if you are interested in knowing rather than posting.
I'm fine with what I wrote.
[/quote]
How nice for you.
[quote]
For example,
a particular bridge is described by the set of its elements - girders
and ropes.
And how they are arrange and interact and so on.
This won't re-identify a bridge, however.
Re-identify? Huh?
Yes. A set of girders and ropes don't reidentify a bridge!
[/quote]
And what in the world does "reidentify" mean and why should anyone
care?
[quote]
To re-identify a bridge I also
need to interpret the girders and ropes through a design.
Why?
The design of
a bridge tells me to interpret these elements as a bridge - a bridge
allows the passage of things across water. Otherwise, without the
design, all I have are sets of ropes and girders and infinite, worthless
possibilities for their application.
By "design" do you mean how they happen to be arranged?
No. "Design" refers to "they". It's parts don't identify it.
[/quote]
Did that make as little sense when you wrote it as it does when we
read it? I don't know what they you mean or why you put it in quotes.
Nor what it you refer to in the second sentence.
[quote]If so, that is
not what "design" means in this debate. Equivocation is not your
friend.
So, in order for life forms to be re-identifiable, I need a design that
allows me to interpret elements as a life form. Describing life forms
through a necessary set of elements simply isn't enough; it isn't
"sufficient". Now, Dawkins describes the elements, but not the form
through which these elements are significantly manifested.
More poetry.
--[/quote]
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:36 am
|
|