Dawkins idea of how Life arose
John Jones
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?
Arturo Magidin
> 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.
> 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).
> 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?
Can anyone say why anybody should bother (i) trying to explain
something to someone who is not interested in listening, but only on
pontificating (basing such pontification on logical fallacies,
ignorance, and misstatements; or (ii) trying to unbeg the question you
are begging? Or for that matter, why would *anyone* want to live in
whatever narrow, twisted little world you live in, where your
prejudices dictate reality?
--
Arturo Magidin
Brian E. Clark
jonesc...@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.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
John Jones
> On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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. And quantum physics isn't pertinent
here as Dawkins and I are talking about macroscopic structures.
Syd M.
> 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
Syd M.
Your point is not worth arguing over, Dave.
PDW
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
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.
>
> >> 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.
> 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; your
claim that there can be no "random events" ignores this. 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.
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." 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.
--
Arturo Magidin
raven1
<jonesc...@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
>Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
No one argues that. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.
>for a development requires an intention,
No, it doesn't.
> 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.
And he doesn't. Chemistry is decidedly not random.
>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
Why not?
> 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.
You're equivocating on "sight" here.
>Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
>
>Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Can you please refrain from posting uninformed nonsense?
haiku jones
<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.
Haiku Jones
Conan the bacterium
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hd1vqh$s1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> jonescard...@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
Hatunen
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Where, exactly, did Dawkins say those things you are refuting? He
does express some hypotheticals about the origin of life itself,
but he has never made an argument about the actual source (OK,
maybe over a beer at a pub...). Dawdins freely admits not knowing
how life began on earth.
Any other straw man arguments?
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Budikka666
> 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
When you can actually prove that bullshit, you might be worth paying
some attention, but until then you're an ignorant, laughable, pathetic
joke.
Budikka
SkyEyes
You're a rather pompous blow-hard, aren't you?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
John Stafford
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.
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."
> Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
> animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
> this?
Dawkins' argument is that if there is a creator, then it must be more
complicated than the created.
> Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
> objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
WTF do you mean by sight?
> Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Do we so distinguish?
> Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Not me. I think Dawkins is a populist gad-fly mired in the ointment of
scienticism.
haiku jones
Naw...as I pointed out, he's just unaware of
the ontological immanence of the ineluctable
modality
(they're kind of...ssshhh. I don't want to say
it to loudly... they're just a bit behind the curve
over there, philosophy-wise).
Haiku
Immortalist
He doesn't need to be saved because he actually did supply many
answers to the arguments you claim he never addresses the core issues
of genetics and evolution. Cause to Dawkins would probably be a
"boundary" or a network of boundries in which the processes of
evolution bump against and change directions, directions which, in the
playoffs of life, lead to more complex animals.
The Drunkard’s Walk
A drunk staggers out of a bar. Here’s the bar, and he’s leaning right
against the wall of the bar. Now, he’s staggering completely at
random, back and forth. There’s a gutter 30 feet away. He staggers
five feet every time he staggers, completely at random, goes towards
the bar as often as he goes away, except if he hits the bar wall, he
can’t go through it, so he just stands there until he staggers away.
Now, where does he end up every time? Of course, he ends up in the
gutter. He falls down in the gutter, the thing’s over. He’s going to
lend up in the gutter every time.
It’s like flipping six heads in a row because he staggers five feet,
but his movement is entirely random. The only reason he ends up in the
gutter is that he’s beginning next to this wall that he can’t go
through. The history of life did the same thing. The history of life
began with a bacteria next to the left wall of maximal simplicity.
So in its random motion back and forth occasionally a species staggers
over towards greater complexity, but it arises within an effectively
random system. The complexity is toward the gutter in that analogy.
And the bar wall is home.
You can’t get simpler than a bacterium, so as life expands, there is a
real trend. The real trend is the success in expansion of life. If you
begin at maximal simplicity, there’s no room to get any simpler, so
what happens is this position of maximal simplicity. The bacterial
mode just gets higher and higher.
How to get directional & predictable
motion within a totally random system.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm
Giga
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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,
=No it doesn't.
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.
Unless they beleive in quantum theory, whichI'm sure he does.
>
> 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.
Whatever, why do I bother..
Lars Eighner
and talented John Jones broadcast on alt.atheism:
> 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,
Nonsense.
> 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.
Hello! This is the 21st century. Determinism was already beginning to
gather dust in the 19th century.
> 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?
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@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.
ZerkonXXXX
> Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
Star bursts?
Zinnic
LOL. It is not Welsh but you have neatly trumped John Jones' in his
own language. :-)
Mitchell Holman
Are those the candies with the liguid center?
Bret Cahill
What % of the UK population is wackadoodle fundamentalist, i.e., 6,000
year old Earth, etc. and is it increasing?
Bret Cahill
Puck Greenman
Isn't it the new name for Chewits?
Mitchell Holman
John Jones
woof
John Jones
> On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Arturo Magidin wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
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".
>
> 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.
You've miss-read me. The paragraphs I used represent different points of
view or ways of expressing the origin of life.
>
>>>> 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.
Your argument was no more than that I am "poisoning the well". That's
your play.
>
>> 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;
Yes, yes, and...
> your
> claim that there can be no "random events" ignores this.
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.
> 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.
Are you appealing to the idea that matter exists in a possible, rather
than a real state?
>
> 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."
It was a necessary consequence. Quote next time.
> 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.
A development is given through a goal, and a goal is given through an
intention.
John Jones
your round then.
John Jones
Yeh. We know.
John Jones
How about a password?
John Jones
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@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
He's guessing then.
>
>> Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
>
> No one argues that. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.
That's what I said.
>
>> for a development requires an intention,
>
> No, it doesn't.
ooh yes it does. Bye.
John Jones
> On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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>...
I know that feeling. But I'm feeling great.
>
> The ontological immanence of the ineluctable modality
> neatly -- if trivially -- refutes all three of your objections.
What sort of object is an ontologically immanent object?
You are saying that objects announce their own form. But my whole point
is that if objects announce their own form then that allows Dawkins to
say that animals develop. But objects do not announce their own forms.
We create their forms.
John Jones
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@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?
>
> Where, exactly, did Dawkins say those things you are refuting?
I said he argued for them implicitly, as I described it.
> He
> does express some hypotheticals about the origin of life itself,
> but he has never made an argument about the actual source (OK,
> maybe over a beer at a pub...). Dawdins freely admits not knowing
> how life began on earth.
>
> Any other straw man arguments?
Only yours. I am not arguing about the physical reasons of life, I am
asking about the way the concept of life is not describable materially.
Giga
"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@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?
I beleive the best guess atm is undersea vents called *white* smokers, such
as the 'LOst City'
ZerkonXXXX
AKA:
The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago from the swirling dust
and gas remnants of an old star’s supernova explosion. As the molten mass
settled and cooled, a solid crust soon formed, probably within as little
as about 150 million years, along with a rudimentary atmosphere composed
largely of carbon dioxide, water vapour and nitrogen.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life_early.html
"We are made of stardust-and so is all life as we know it..."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Stardust/John-Gribbin/e/9780300090970
"Life on earth is made out of stardust. Life somewhere else is going to
probably be made out of stardust too."
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/d.compsci.seti.html
ZerkonXXXX
> Isn't it the new name for Chewits?
Naw, old dance hall in Des Moines.
The night was young and hot and so were they, my life arose some months
later.
John Stafford
ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
Could you possibly be more cryptic?
Andy F.
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.
>
That's a non sequitur.It's possible for events to be random but still 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.
>
John Jones
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Here is what Dawkins said about 'random' and evolution, "Mutation is
> random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed.
Yes. A random event is more than a physical description. What is random
is an object that hasn't been given a structure or role.
> 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."
How can Dawkins claim that there are forms that are anticipated in blind
nature?
>
>> Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
>> animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
>> this?
>
> Dawkins' argument is that if there is a creator, then it must be more
> complicated than the created.
That doesn't square with the idea that the multitude of forms of nature
can be represented by simple algorithms.
>
>> Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
>> objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
>
> WTF do you mean by sight?
The objects of causation in nature are not blind (they can anticipate
and literally see things) even if the the process of causation is
inherently blind.
>
>> Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
>
> Do we so distinguish?
Yes. Otherwise, we would not be able to give an account of objects in
causation.
John Jones
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's a non sequitur.It's possible for events to be random but still follow
> strict rules of causation.
There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events unless
he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
Hatunen
To which we might add, for the benefit of those who do not know
about them, that there are life forms at the undersea smokers
that do not require oxygen but rather oxidize hydrogen sulfide.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events unless
>he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
Rubbish. There are random physical events which have no goal or
design to them. Radioactive decay is strictly random. But that
being said, you are correct that a genetic mutation might be
caused by a particle from a radioactive decay or a random strike
from a cosmic ray, but you are going to have to explain hw that
might be by design or some sort of goal-orientation.
Puck Greenman
>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".
So weather systems, gave a goal: Do tell
John Jones
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:31:20 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events unless
>> he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
>
> Rubbish. There are random physical events which have no goal or
> design to them. Radioactive decay is strictly random. But that
> being said, you are correct that a genetic mutation might be
> caused by a particle from a radioactive decay or a random strike
> from a cosmic ray, but you are going to have to explain hw that
> might be by design or some sort of goal-orientation.
>
Random events are a particular set of events that have not been ascribed
a structure or name.
IAAH
Completely incorrect. There are several types of
physical events which are known to be random
without goals.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
IAAH
Why do you feel the need to re-define the word?
Giga
"Andy F." <never...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:7longiF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's a non sequitur.It's possible for events to be random but still
> follow strict rules of causation.
>
Zinnic
> On 11/8/09 6:44 PM, * John Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hatunen wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:31:20 +0000, John Jones
> >> <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>> There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events
> >>> unless he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
>
> >> Rubbish. There are random physical events which have no goal or
> >> design to them. Radioactive decay is strictly random. But that
> >> being said, you are correct that a genetic mutation might be
> >> caused by a particle from a radioactive decay or a random strike
> >> from a cosmic ray, but you are going to have to explain hw that
> >> might be by design or some sort of goal-orientation.
>
> > Random events are a particular set of events that have not been ascribed
> > a structure or name.
>
> Why do you feel the need to re-define the word?
>
Cos he has a need to mis-communicate!
Drafterman
> 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.
Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
feature of evolution.
>
> 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.
Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics understands that there are no
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?
Evolution is different from abiogenesis. Educate yourself.
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
"intention".
>Bye.
See ya, Brave Sir Robin...
John Jones
I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one. We
can only look if we know what we are looking for. We use a design or
template to do that.
John Jones
> On 11/8/09 6:44 PM, * John Jones wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:31:20 +0000, John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events
>>>> unless he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. There are random physical events which have no goal or
>>> design to them. Radioactive decay is strictly random. But that
>>> being said, you are correct that a genetic mutation might be
>>> caused by a particle from a radioactive decay or a random strike
>>> from a cosmic ray, but you are going to have to explain hw that
>>> might be by design or some sort of goal-orientation.
>>>
>>
>> Random events are a particular set of events that have not been
>> ascribed a structure or name.
>
> Why do you feel the need to re-define the word?
>
What else could it be?
John Jones
> On 11/8/09 4:31 PM, * John Jones wrote:
>> Andy F. wrote:
>>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a non sequitur.It's possible for events to be random but still
>>> follow strict rules of causation.
>>
>> There is no ground on which Dawkins can argue for random events unless
>> he wants to bring design and goals into nature.
>
> Completely incorrect. There are several types of physical events which
> are known to be random without goals.
>
There are no objects at all in nature. If we start talking about random
and non-random events and objects then we already bring design into the
discussion.
John Jones
> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
>
> Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
> suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
> feature of evolution.
It bears down upon the whole concept of evolution, as evolution is about
"development". But development implies a goal of some sort.
>
>> 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.
>
> Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics understands that there are no
> strict rules of causation.
>
Why would quantum events interest Dawkins? He's looking at macroscopic
structures.
Drafterman
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
>
> > Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
> > suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
> > feature of evolution.
>
> It bears down upon the whole concept of evolution, as evolution is about
> "development". But development implies a goal of some sort.
But as much as development implies a goal, evolution is *not* about
it. Evolution is about evolution. It is about the change of living
organisms via their descendents. There is no goal.
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics understands that there are no
> > strict rules of causation.
>
> Why would quantum events interest Dawkins?
They should interest you, if you are interested in being accurate when
you make such claims. The point is, there are not "strict rules of
causation". Ergo no one must follow them, since they don't exist.
> He's looking at macroscopic
> structures.
Macroscopic structures (organisms) whose features are determined by
genetic code (DNA). DNA is microscopic. Evolution is dependent on
biology. Biology on chemistry. Chemistry on Quantum mechanics.
>
>
>
> >> 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?
>
> > Evolution is different from abiogenesis. Educate yourself.
This is an important distinction that should not be ignored trivially.
Do you understand the difference between abiogensis and evolution?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dan Listermann
> Drafterman wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
>>
>> Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
>> suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
>> feature of evolution.
>
> It bears down upon the whole concept of evolution, as evolution is about
> "development". But development implies a goal of some sort.
Why?
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:18:41 +0000, John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
>>>> <jonesc...@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
>>> He's guessing then.
>>>
>>>>> Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
>>>> No one argues that. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.
>>> That's what I said.
>>>
>>>>> for a development requires an intention,
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>> ooh yes it does.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
>> "intention".
>
>I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
>that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
Do we? And what has this to do with either "development" or
"intention"? Are you using your own private definitions of words?
>We
>can only look if we know what we are looking for. We use a design or
>template to do that.
You seem to also be using your own definition of "design" and
"template".
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>> There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
> >>>> arose. Here's why:
> >>> 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?
>
> I didn't misuse the word "develop".
Of course you did. You restricted to but one meaning, an
anthropomorphic one; the word is not restricted to that meaning and
that meaning alone.
>A development is given through a
> goal, and a goal is given through an intention.
No, that is but one (minor) meaning of the word. *EVERY YEAR* we talk
about tropical cyclones *DEVELOPING* in the tropics; we talk about
conditions "developing". None of these uses require a "goal through an
intention".
But you *know* that. You are just playing the fool.
>I argued that Dawkins
> can't use the term "develop".
You argued that Dawkins cannot use your restricted, silly, terminology
in which words are stripped of most of their meaning, just so you can
go ahead and savage strawmne.
That's why you poisoined the well. The very first thing you did was
equivocate and change the meaning of words, because that was the only
way in which your "argument" could pretend to stand.
> > 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.
>
> You've miss-read me.
No, I read exactly what you wrote.
>The paragraphs I used represent different points of
> view or ways of expressing the origin of life.
Now you are just being disingenious. In response to the *clear*,
*obvious*, *incontrovertible* fact that you are misusing the word
"develop", you stated "That's why I offered 'arose' instead of the
term 'developed'." You know: in that part of the post that you deleted
in this reply so it wouldn't be obvious taht you are lying your ass
off here. You claimed that you were offering it as an 'alternative'.
But the 'alternative' you offered does not allow you to cover the
many, many, meanings of the word "developed" that you have decided to
excise from existence, Humpty-dumpty style.
And now you just lie about your lies. Silly you.
> >>>> 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.
>
> Your argument was no more than that I am "poisoning the well". That's
> your play.
You missed it, again. That's what happens when you have your head
stuck up your ass: you can't look up without seeing nothing but fecal
matter.
> >> 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;
>
> Yes, yes, and...
>
> > your
> > claim that there can be no "random events" ignores this.
>
> 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.
You "entertained" the possibility by distorting it and misrepresenting
it. You poisoned the well. Your "point" is that if you distort the
meaning of words, you misrepresent arguments, you present caricatures,
and you argue against strawman, then you *think* you look like you are
making an argument. You aren't. You are just lying. Mostly to
yourself, but lying nonetheless.
>
> > 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.
>
> Are you appealing to the idea that matter exists in a possible, rather
> than a real state?
Are you failing to address the point that when you claimed that the
origin of life is an argument about "macroscopic structures" you did
not know what you were talking about?
Are you offering instead a non-sequitur instead of addressing your
misstatement, your mistake, your strawmand, and your lies?
Yes, and yes.
And as to your "question": why on Earth you would think that? Silly
person.
> > 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."
>
> It was a necessary consequence. Quote next time.
Oh, my. What a dishonest little ignorant git you are. YOU are deleting
quotes in order to misrepresent your words when you are caught with
your pants down, and to pretend to claim that I am misrepresenting
you.
No, it was not a necessary consequence, because there is plenty of
things between "arose as a consequence of random events" and
"developed as a consequence of a mental intention by an actor." You
presented two extremes, disguising them by equivocating on the meaning
of words and poisoning the well by misstating what the words mean.
That was all. You were doing nothing but playing with words.
> > 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.
>
> A development is given through a goal, and a goal is given through an
> intention.
You are still misusing words. Try seeing how the words are used,
instead of trying to impose the meaning you would like them to have on
them. You aren't Humpty-dumpty, to make words mean what you want them
to mean and nothing more, though perhaps you *did* fall off the wall
on your head at some point.
Tropical systems develop every year (look at the National Hurricane
Center website right now, to see their discussion of the "future
development of tropical storm Ida"; no goal, no intention); situations
develop; lots of things develop without goals and without intentions.
Stop playing with yourself, and start thinking. You may even come to
like it.
--
Arturo Magidin
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
> > No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
> > "intention".
>
> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
"development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
goal and an intention "behind it". As such, you are unequivocally
saying that it is incorrect to talk about storm "developing", unless
we are also saying that there is a "goal" and an "intention" behind
that development.
You are explicilty and clearly claiming that the *word* cannot be used
unless to refer to the result of a goal and an intention. And we are
showing you that this is nonsense. The word is used *all the time* to
refer to events and situations that do *not* have a goal and do *not*
come through intention.
The rest is just you trying to change the subject, equivocate, and
play with words.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
My mistake... (And since I am now posting through google, "cancelling"
only removes the post from google, not any other server...)
On Nov 9, 11:00 am, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>you stated "That's why I offered 'arose' instead of the
> term 'developed'." You know: in that part of the post that you deleted
There was no deletion; it was just obscured by Google and by poor
quoting software that eliminated paragraph breaks.
> YOU are deleting
> quotes
He apparently wasn't. He was "just" misrepresenting them.
--
Arturo Magidin
haiku jones
> haiku jones wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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,
> >> 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.
>
> >> 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?
>
>
> I know that feeling. But I'm feeling great.
>
>
>
> > Theontologicalimmanenceof the ineluctable modality
> > neatly -- if trivially -- refutes all three of your objections.
>
> What sort of object is an ontologically immanent object?
Anything which can undergo a transformational
instantiation into the numinous, obviously.
> You are saying that objects announce their own form
Not in the least.
Haiku Jones
>. But my whole point
> is that if objects announce their own form then that allows Dawkins to
> say that animals develop. But objects do not announce their own forms.
> We create their forms.
>
> > I'm still surprised that in this day and age anyone
> > needs to have this explained to them.
>
> > Haiku Jones
John Jones
> On Nov 7, 8:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> A development is given through a
>> goal, and a goal is given through an intention.
>
> No, that is but one (minor) meaning of the word. *EVERY YEAR* we talk
> about tropical cyclones *DEVELOPING* in the tropics; we talk about
> conditions "developing". None of these uses require a "goal through an
> intention".
Air movements only successfully develop to a tropical cyclone if we have
an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal. They could develop into an
unsuccessful mild breeze if we saw that as their goal.
> hat a dishonest little ignorant git YOU are deleting
> o misrepresent your words when
> your pants downpretend to claim misrepresenting
> Humpty-dumpty, playing with your start thinking. You may
John Jones
Can anyone fit this into the jigsaw?
John Jones
See last post for tropical storm scenario.
John Jones
> On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
> given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
>
>>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
>>> "intention".
>> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
>> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
>
> No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
> "development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
> goal and an intention "behind it".
NO. I'm arguing that to talk about a development we, or the thing
developing, have a goal or picture toward which we are striving.
> As such, you are unequivocally
> saying that it is incorrect to talk about storm "developing", unless
> we are also saying that there is a "goal" and an "intention" behind
> that development.
There is a goal. Our goal is to look for a storm developing. When we get
a storm our goal is fulfilled.
John Jones
I asked my friends. They said that you think that objects announce their
own form. Me and all my friends say that you think that objects announce
their own form.
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> A development is given through a
> >> goal, and a goal is given through an intention.
>
> > No, that is but one (minor) meaning of the word. *EVERY YEAR* we talk
> > about tropical cyclones *DEVELOPING* in the tropics; we talk about
> > conditions "developing". None of these uses require a "goal through an
> > intention".
>
> Air movements only successfully develop to a tropical cyclone if we have
> an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal.
You are still playing word games, Humpty.
The fact is, we talk about weather systems "developing" even though
there is no intentionality behind that "development". You claim that
the only possible use of "develop" is that to denote a process which
is *directed* by intentionality. Your use above is inconsistent with
*that* claim, and it is inconsistent with *standard* usage of the
term. Your attempts to redefine the word to fit your narrow
preconceptions notwithstanding.
Systems develop independent of any intention behind that development;
nor do we require a mental image of a "goal" to speak about that
development. The word, simply, does not mean what you claim it means.
It encompasses far more than your narrow purpose for it.
> They could develop into an
> unsuccessful mild breeze if we saw that as their goal.
Still playing word games. Seems like the only way in which you can
sustain your claims is by redefining the words. Tells you something
about just how sturdy those claims are...
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
> > given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
>
> >>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
> >>> "intention".
> >> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
> >> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
>
> > No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
> > "development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
> > goal and an intention "behind it".
>
> NO. I'm arguing that to talk about a development we, or the thing
> developing, have a goal or picture toward which we are striving.
And that is claim is *also* false. The word is used for far more than
that narrow meaning, which you insist is the only possible meaning.
> > As such, you are unequivocally
> > saying that it is incorrect to talk about storm "developing", unless
> > we are also saying that there is a "goal" and an "intention" behind
> > that development.
>
> There is a goal. Our goal is to look for a storm developing.
That is not what is meant when the National Hurricane Service talks
about the development of a system. If you don't know that, then you
are ignorant. If you do know that, then you being purposely obtuse.
Either way, your claims are false.
> When we get
> a storm our goal is fulfilled.
Apparently, your goal is only fulfilled when we redefine language. And
equivocating, since you first asserted that the only possible meaning
of the use "develop" was an intentional one, i.e., one that describes
an intention *guiding* that development. Now you are claiming you are
talking an intention guiding the *understanding* of the phenomenon;
but that would throw out your dismissal of the use of the word which
you did earlier, even assuming without granting the castration of
meanings that you insist on putting on the word.
I guess that when one has a pointy head, one needs to define things
narrowly so that they will fit. Would explain your insistence on
redefining language.
--
Arturo Magidin
John Jones
> On Nov 9, 9:13 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Drafterman wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
>>> Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
>>> suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
>>> feature of evolution.
>> It bears down upon the whole concept of evolution, as evolution is about
>> "development". But development implies a goal of some sort.
>
> But as much as development implies a goal, evolution is *not* about
> it. Evolution is about evolution. It is about the change of living
> organisms via their descendents. There is no goal.
There must be a goal or expected, recognisable outcome of some sort,
ours, or there wouldn't be any objects we could recognise as being changed.
>> Why would quantum events interest Dawkins?
>
> They should interest you, if you are interested in being accurate when
> you make such claims. The point is, there are not "strict rules of
> causation". Ergo no one must follow them, since they don't exist.
If you are told that "the pack of dogs survived" you aren't better
informed by accurately knowing their quantum electron configurations.
>
>> He's looking at macroscopic
>> structures.
>
> Macroscopic structures (organisms) whose features are determined by
> genetic code (DNA).
> DNA is microscopic.
It might be microscopic to you but its a banquet for some poor virus.
You should be grateful for what you have.
> Evolution is dependent on
> biology. Biology on chemistry. Chemistry on Quantum mechanics.
We use the level of description that is appropriate. Evolution is not
dependent on anything physical by the way.
John Jones
Development implies a goal. The goal is an expected outcome. Once the
expected outcome has been realised then we say that full development has
occurred.
haiku jones
Actually, not at all. What I have been doing in fact is taking
perfectly
unassuming, hard-working, honest English words and stringing
them together in meaningless, semantically empty, a-logical
phrases and sentences. Word salad.
I mean, it looked like a lot of fun watching you do that, so
I thought I'd give it a try myself.
Haiku Jones
John Jones
> On Nov 9, 4:16 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Arturo Magidin wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 8:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> A development is given through a
>>>> goal, and a goal is given through an intention.
>>> No, that is but one (minor) meaning of the word. *EVERY YEAR* we talk
>>> about tropical cyclones *DEVELOPING* in the tropics; we talk about
>>> conditions "developing". None of these uses require a "goal through an
>>> intention".
>> Air movements only successfully develop to a tropical cyclone if we have
>> an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal.
>
> You are still playing word games, Humpty.
Ohhh no I'm not.
>
> The fact is, we talk about weather systems "developing" even though
> there is no intentionality behind that "development".
I said "if we have an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal."
> You claim that
> the only possible use of "develop" is that to denote a process which
> is *directed* by intentionality. Your use above is inconsistent with
> *that* claim, and it is inconsistent with *standard* usage of the
> term.
It's perfectly standard use. "Develop" means to move toward some sort of
outcome. Only we know when the outcome has been achieved. And we apply a
model for that.
> Your attempts to redefine the word to fit your narrow
> preconceptions notwithstanding.
You are redefining words to match a dumbed down, take it for granted
lexicon.
>
> Systems develop independent of any intention behind that development;
> nor do we require a mental image of a "goal" to speak about that
> development. The word, simply, does not mean what you claim it means.
> It encompasses far more than your narrow purpose for it.
>
>> They could develop into an
>> unsuccessful mild breeze if we saw that as their goal.
>
> Still playing word games.
It's your turn.
> Seems like the only way in which you can
> sustain your claims is by redefining the words. Tells you something
> about just how sturdy those claims are...
You are ignoring the ways in which grammar informs sense and opting
instead for a dumbed down dictionary.
John Jones
> On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Arturo Magidin wrote:
>>> On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
>>> given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
>>>>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
>>>>> "intention".
>>>> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
>>>> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
>>> No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
>>> "development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
>>> goal and an intention "behind it".
>> NO. I'm arguing that to talk about a development we, or the thing
>> developing, have a goal or picture toward which we are striving.
>
> And that is claim is *also* false. The word is used for far more than
> that narrow meaning, which you insist is the only possible meaning.
It's still your turn. Don't miss it.
>>> As such, you are unequivocally
>>> saying that it is incorrect to talk about storm "developing", unless
>>> we are also saying that there is a "goal" and an "intention" behind
>>> that development.
>> There is a goal. Our goal is to look for a storm developing.
>
> That is not what is meant when the National Hurricane Service talks
> about the development of a system. If you don't know that, then you
> are ignorant. If you do know that, then you being purposely obtuse.
> Either way, your claims are false.
>
>
>> When we get
>> a storm our goal is fulfilled.
>
> Apparently, your goal is only fulfilled when we redefine language.
Have you understood anything here? A development is a stage in a set of
developments that move toward an outcome. Yes?
John Jones
I know if it makes sense or not but you don't.
haiku jones
Apparently not -- given that you immediately
started telling me what I *really* meant
by my intentionally meaningless strings
of philosophobabble.
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
A rock rolls down a hillside. Is there a goal? If so, what has the goal,
the rock? The observer of the rock? Spooks? What?
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:16 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> >>> On Nov 7, 8:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>> A development is given through a
> >>>> goal, and a goal is given through an intention.
> >>> No, that is but one (minor) meaning of the word. *EVERY YEAR* we talk
> >>> about tropical cyclones *DEVELOPING* in the tropics; we talk about
> >>> conditions "developing". None of these uses require a "goal through an
> >>> intention".
> >> Air movements only successfully develop to a tropical cyclone if we have
> >> an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal.
>
> > You are still playing word games, Humpty.
>
> Ohhh no I'm not.
Of course you are. You are restricting the meaning of words in ways
that are incompatible with their standard usages. That's why you are
playing word games.
>
> > The fact is, we talk about weather systems "developing" even though
> > there is no intentionality behind that "development".
>
> I said "if we have an idea of a cyclone in mind as its goal."
Then your original claim is untenable, Dumpty. You wrote:
> "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."
However, you now argue that we can talk about a storm system
"developing" because what we are doing is describing how a change-over-
time makes a particular object approach or become closer to our
*current* idea of the goal. That is, we have an idea of what a
"cyclone" is, and if we say that the system is "developing" or "has
developed", then we are not imputing intentionality on the forces that
are creating the cyclone, but are merely saying that we are
recognizing the changes as making that weather system approach our
idealized idea of what a cyclone is. In other words, you are saying
that the use of the word is correct, even though we do not ascribe any
particular intention on the forces of nature acting on that weather
system, and even though our mental idea of what a cyclone is has no
jursidiction over the material events that are shaping the changes of
that weather system.
But then you've just shot yourself in the foot, evidencing your word-
play. Your clam that Dawkins cannot argue that animals develop is
untenable: for he would merely be saying that the animals have
experienced change-over-time, with no intentionality behind that
development, and those changes make them approach his mental image of
what animals "are", namely, their current form. In other words, he
would merely be saying that we have a mental image of the animals,
based on their present shape, and that the animals have changed over
time in ways that make their shapes approach their current shapes as
time goes on. The "intention" is only his intention of recognizing how
the forms are getting closer to their current form, and the mental
image need not have any "jurisdiction" over the material event: it
merely describes what the animal looks like now.
And that's assuming without conceding your risible narrowing of the
meaning of, and misuse of, the word "Develop."
> > You claim that
> > the only possible use of "develop" is that to denote a process which
> > is *directed* by intentionality. Your use above is inconsistent with
> > *that* claim, and it is inconsistent with *standard* usage of the
> > term.
>
> It's perfectly standard use.
Nope. It's not. You are playing word games.
>"Develop" means to move toward some sort of
> outcome. Only we know when the outcome has been achieved. And we apply a
> model for that.
Then your claim that Dawkins cannot talk about animals "developing"
cannot stand and your very first post in this thread departs from a
claim that you now reject as false. Good going.
> > Your attempts to redefine the word to fit your narrow
> > preconceptions notwithstanding.
>
> You are redefining words to match a dumbed down, take it for granted
> lexicon.
No, I am using words the way they are used in common parlance. YOU are
narrowing their meanings to match a dumbed down intellect, namely your
own.
>
>
>
> > Systems develop independent of any intention behind that development;
> > nor do we require a mental image of a "goal" to speak about that
> > development. The word, simply, does not mean what you claim it means.
> > It encompasses far more than your narrow purpose for it.
>
> >> They could develop into an
> >> unsuccessful mild breeze if we saw that as their goal.
>
> > Still playing word games.
>
> It's your turn.
No, thank you. I'll leave the word games to you; I happen to think
idiotic word games should be played only by idiots.
> > Seems like the only way in which you can
> > sustain your claims is by redefining the words. Tells you something
> > about just how sturdy those claims are...
>
> You are ignoring the ways in which grammar informs sense and opting
> instead for a dumbed down dictionary.
You are ignoring the way in which words are *used*, opting instead for
your own dumbed down intellect.
The only one dumbing things down here is you. I can only assume it is
because you cannot comprehend anything that is not dumb.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> >>> On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
> >>> given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
> >>>>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
> >>>>> "intention".
> >>>> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
> >>>> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
> >>> No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
> >>> "development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
> >>> goal and an intention "behind it".
> >> NO. I'm arguing that to talk about a development we, or the thing
> >> developing, have a goal or picture toward which we are striving.
>
> > And that is claim is *also* false. The word is used for far more than
> > that narrow meaning, which you insist is the only possible meaning.
>
> It's still your turn. Don't miss it.
Sorry, Dumpty. *I* don't need to play word games to make my case.
That's *your* game, and I have no intention of taking turns in it.
> >>> As such, you are unequivocally
> >>> saying that it is incorrect to talk about storm "developing", unless
> >>> we are also saying that there is a "goal" and an "intention" behind
> >>> that development.
> >> There is a goal. Our goal is to look for a storm developing.
>
> > That is not what is meant when the National Hurricane Service talks
> > about the development of a system. If you don't know that, then you
> > are ignorant. If you do know that, then you being purposely obtuse.
> > Either way, your claims are false.
>
> >> When we get
> >> a storm our goal is fulfilled.
>
> > Apparently, your goal is only fulfilled when we redefine language.
>
> Have you understood anything here?
Yes: I understand that you are began by narrowing the meaning of a
common word in order to purposely misunderstand what Dawkins may or
may not say in order to dismiss it. When confronted with common usages
of the word that would fly in the face of yoru misconstruction of the
word, you have changed your claim as to what the word may mean; the
usage you now give makes your original dismissal untenable, and in any
case is still inconsistent with common usage. You describe any attempt
to *expand* the meaning of that word to encompass its common usages as
"dumbing down", even though that phrase is used to describe
*narrowing* of meanings, that is, to describe what *you* are doing.
You are playing word games, that's all you are doing.
>A development is a stage in a set of
> developments that move toward an outcome. Yes?
Then your original dismissal of Dawkins is untenable, since the
"outcome" may be the present form of life, and the description does
not require an intentionality *guiding* the process, which is the
meaning that you used in order to dismiss it in the first place.
In short, you were and continue to play word games, Humpty. If you
admit the use of "development" of a weather system is correct, even
though it does * not* describe an intentionality that is actually
guiding the *system* (but rather only describes the intentionality
guiding the *recognition* of the system by the speaker), then you
cannot dismiss the use of "development" in describing the changes over
time of life forms on the grounds that the speaker rejects the idea of
an intionality guiding the *changes*, since he could be merely
describing the *recognition* of the life forms by the speaker as they
approach their current shape.
--
Arturo Magidin
Andy F.
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:hY-dnYsC8-9peWrX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Andy F." <never...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:7longiF...@mid.individual.net...>> news:hd1vqh$s1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
>>> arose. Here's why:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
>>> materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
>>>
>>
>>
Toss a coin. The motion of the coin is determined by the laws of physics.But
the result is still random.
Arturo Magidin
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 9:13 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Drafterman wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
> >>> Even if we grant the implications of the word "develop" all this would
> >>> suggest is an inaccurate use of the word, rather than some damning
> >>> feature of evolution.
> >> It bears down upon the whole concept of evolution, as evolution is about
> >> "development". But development implies a goal of some sort.
>
> > But as much as development implies a goal, evolution is *not* about
> > it. Evolution is about evolution. It is about the change of living
> > organisms via their descendents. There is no goal.
>
> There must be a goal or expected, recognisable outcome of some sort,
> ours, or there wouldn't be any objects we could recognise as being changed.
If that is all you mean, then your dismissal of the original claim is
unfounded. The "expected goal" would be the *current* shape and form
that life has. The "development" would then be merely the change-over-
time from a shape that is patently distinct from the current one to
forms that more and more approximate the current one. The
"intentionality" exists only in the mind of the speaker, to represent
the intention of comparing the past with the present, and not that of
a "guiding force" that is "behind" the changes. Yet your original
dismissal was based on claiming that Dawkins could not use "develop"
because that would imply a kind of 'guiding' force and an intention
'behind the changes', whereas now you allow that the intention may
reside *only* in the interpretation by the speaker.
If you look down quickly, you may be able to see the smoke coming out
of the hole in your leg where you just shot it.
--
Arturo Magidin
Puck Greenman
>Arturo Magidin wrote:
>> On John Jones misusing intention by claiming that "A development is
>> given through a goal, and a goal is given through an intention."
>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Storm systems, for example, develop without any
>>>> "intention".
>>> I'm not claiming that storms etc have consciousness or not. I'm arguing
>>> that to distinguish a storm, we have to set about looking for one.
>>
>> No, you are arguing that we cannot use the word "develop" or
>> "development" unless we are using it to refer to something which has a
>> goal and an intention "behind it".
>
>NO. I'm arguing that to talk about a development we, or the thing
>developing, have a goal or picture toward which we are striving.
Either way, you are talking through your arse.
John Stafford
<02e65b94-6317-43ad...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:14�pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
> >
> > I didn't misuse the word "develop".
>
> Of course you did. You restricted to but one meaning, an
> anthropomorphic one; the word is not restricted to that meaning and
> that meaning alone.
Logic error on your part, Arturo. You would like to secure your
definition of a word after the author had already used it.
That is not poisoning the well.
I suspect you just recently learned the phrase, or never understood what
it means.
Start over.
But I won't be here to observe your silliness. You are killfiled
Arturo Magidin
> In article
> <02e65b94-6317-43ad-838f-a04ba3fc0...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
The "author" here would be Dawkins, using the word in its standard
meaning. Mr Jones proceeded to misinterpret it. By presenting
Dawkins's words and then purposely misinterpreting, he was attempting
to cast his words into ridicule at the very beginning of the argument.
That's poisoning the well.
> That is not poisoning the well.
>
> I suspect you just recently learned the phrase,
I suspect you are another clueless "philosopher" who thinks that *not*
knowing something makes you apt to cast judgement on it.
> or never understood what
> it means.
Whatever. Your "opinion" is duly noted and given all the weight it
deserves.
>
> Start over.
>
> But I won't be here to observe your silliness. You are killfiled
Good for you. That way you can pretend you don't see all the reasons
why you are incorrect and being an idiot, and are not forced to come
out and defend yourself. A standard tactic in Usenet.
--
Arturo Magidin
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
At this point I see no reason to bother; you're just playing pointless
word games.
John Jones
You are overwhelmed by my arguments and banging your desk lid in
frustration. It's still your turn to reply. The above wasn't a reply.
John Jones
Good. Now we can draw it to a close. Dawkins can't use the word
"develop" because he hasn't given a definition of the outcome. That's
what I've been saying all along. Adios.
John Jones
Yes, I stated a fact.
John Jones
The physical placement of an intention isn't appropriate or important.
If Dawkins uses the term 'develop' he must have an outcome in mind. But
he has given no definition or picture of an outcome. He merely gives a
name ("life") and a list of properties that are associated with a name.
John Jones
You have an idea of the bottom of the hill, but from the point of view
of matter it's all just bumps knocks and movements.
haiku jones
<SNORT!> A "fact" which would come as
a great surprise to scholars of James Joyce,
from whose "Ulysses" I stole the phrase
"ineluctable modality" -- utterly meaningless
in this context.
"Ontological" and "immanence" were of
course equally nonsensensical, and were
tacked on up front merely to give it a
pleasing Latinate heft, and a whiff
of philosophical "respectability".
Upon which you briskly proceeded to tell
me what I "really was saying" by all this
carefully crafted meaninglessness.
Haiku Jones
Dan Listermann
Where is the "goal?" Could you accept that it simply "happened" and leave
it at that? Why must every action have a "goal?"
Arturo Magidin
>
> You are overwhelmed by my arguments and banging your desk lid in
^^^
> frustration. It's still your turn to reply. The above wasn't a reply.
You misspelled "I'm". Hope that helps.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
You've stated that you don ot find ignorance of "technicalities" to be
a bar for your to pontificate. I take it that you now are giving
evidence that you do not consider truth or facts to be a bar for you
to pontificate either.
> That's
> what I've been saying all along.
That's a pretty stupid lie. You never said that, and you know it.
So, not only are you an ignoramus wanna-be, you are also a liar.
> Adios.
If only it were true, but you are still posting your inanities. You
are truly a waste of oxygen.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
>
> The physical placement of an intention isn't appropriate or important.
>
> If Dawkins uses the term 'develop' he must have an outcome in mind.
Only if he were to agree with your ex post facto dumbing down of the
term.
Actually, if *you* use the term development, then you must have a
meaning in mind that matches my understanding. Ergo, you cannot use
the term unless you use in a way that I approve of.
(That would be your argument now).
> > If you look down quickly, you may be able to see the smoke coming out
> > of the hole in your leg where you just shot it.
You weren't watching, huh?
--
Arturo Magidin
haiku jones
Mark Bilbo rather put paid to that back in February:
"How would you know, Mister `"I'm too busy to read
anything Dawkins wrote.'"?
(a John Jones quote of a few days later is also worth
recalling: "I don't think Dawkins would be a match
for me")
Haiku Jones
Arturo Magidin
> > You've stated that you don ot find ignorance of "technicalities" to be
> > a bar for your to pontificate. I take it that you now are giving
> > evidence that you do not consider truth or facts to be a bar for you
> > to pontificate either.
>
> Mark Bilbo rather put paid to that back in February:
> "How would you know, Mister `"I'm too busy to read
> anything Dawkins wrote.'"?
>
> (a John Jones quote of a few days later is also worth
> recalling: "I don't think Dawkins would be a match
> for me")
I would certainly agree with the latter; just like I don't think
Muhammad Ali, in his prime, would be a match for the proverbial 98-
pound weakling.
--
Arturo Magidin
John Jones
I'm right then, judging by the noise.
John Jones
Dawkins doesn't do too good on tele anyway when he's challenged. I would
make mincemeat of him. Easy.
John Jones
I'm fine with that.
Jimbo
> 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,
Or none that your poor brainwashed mind can conceive of. Too much
holy water in your koolaide.
John Jones
You said rolled down the hill. That picture is fulfilled by rolling
"down". If it rolled up it would be a random mutation.