Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Dilemma

fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:16:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
'A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections , with a future purpose in his mind's eye.
Natural selection, the blind unconcious automatic process that Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye.It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature , it is the blind watchmaker.
Richard Dawkins ' The Blind Watchmaker'
A brilliant description in a magnificent book.
Now you may well admire the beauty of the natural world as if it is a piece of planned design, so its a bit disconcerting to admire the work of a blind and purposeless process.
Yet many do just that, like the late Carl Sagon, with glazed eyes and lowered voice.
Is it not even more curious that the very brain we use to fathom and enjoy is the result of the purposeless activities of the blind watchmaker.
Don't get too ecstatic when you next see those Hubble pictures.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.
This space for rent.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists always use words like "purpose" and "design". They may add on things like "appearance of", but we all know they can't get around using these terms,. because they are self-evident.
Aran55633
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 8:08:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?
Imagine, for a moment, that you came about as a result of evolution. Would you say that your brain serves no purpose?

The answer is yes, but that's only because we're talking about you.

In the case of every other human, it does serve a purpose. So do the kidneys; the kidneys exist for the purpose of cleansing the body. That's why they were evolved in our ancestors.

They evolved because they serve a purpose for the body.

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.


Well, is purpose external to evolution, or is it intrinsic to evolution? It is or it isn't, unless you can tell me how there is a third option. So take a breath and think this through.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day.

Yer a genius. Now you need to actually listen to yourself. Think about what you just said. Really, man, grab a cup of coffee, find a quiet place, and honestly ponder the implications of what you just said. How can we be the offspring of evolution, and only evolution, yet have developed a language system with concepts foreign to evolution? In other words, why is the reality we live in not the one that would result from evolution?

Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things.

Yes, so to get back to the starting point that you have not yet grasped, where do these things you make analogy to come from? Where does real purpose, intent, and design come from?

It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.


If you want to call me stupid, it would help if you could first understand what I'm saying, lol.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:00:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
....

Hey, an apology for the tone of the last post. I see that a post I made which had already responded to much of what you said didn't 'take'. They must have had technical problems yesterday - I made a post, but it must have timed out or something.

So yeah, the angle I'm trying to emphasize in this thread is that, if you're going to say evolution "looks like" design or purpose or intent, then there must be a 'real' design, purpose or intent to compare to. So where did such things originate? How can humans have purpose when in fact they are purposeless beings, for instance.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 5:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 12:56:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.


Well, is purpose external to evolution, or is it intrinsic to evolution? It is or it isn't, unless you can tell me how there is a third option. So take a breath and think this through.

There is no purpose at all. The process is trial and error. Everyone is pretty explicit about that at almost every time and every step. This is just meaningless haggling over the specifics of language by trying to argue that using a particular phrase or word completely negates the details of everything that is said outside of that context.

Seriously, this is weak.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day.

Yer a genius. Now you need to actually listen to yourself. Think about what you just said. Really, man, grab a cup of coffee, find a quiet place, and honestly ponder the implications of what you just said. How can we be the offspring of evolution, and only evolution, yet have developed a language system with concepts foreign to evolution? In other words, why is the reality we live in not the one that would result from evolution?

Are you seriously arguing that if evolution were true we shouldn't have words like "purpose", "created", "design" and "intent"? Really?

Evolution can yield intelligent beings that converse and create things every day and thus need language to express that.

V you must know how bad this argument is, surely.

Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things.

Yes, so to get back to the starting point that you have not yet grasped, where do these things you make analogy to come from? Where does real purpose, intent, and design come from?

How would you summarize an unguided process that yields organisms with traits and features well suited to to the environment due to successive generations of trail and error? Saying that it's designed forthat environment, for example, doesn't mean we believe or are in denial, it's just an easier way to summarize it. When I say things along those lines I expect that my readership is intelligent enough to understand those words in the appropriate context.

I suspect that I have to readdress the amount of credit I give people like you. Indeed you complain about my word count, but clarifying, explaining and detailing what I mean is absolutely necessary to stop you doing just what you're doing here.

It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.


If you want to call me stupid, it would help if you could first understand what I'm saying, lol.

Oh I understand exactly what you're saying. You have ignored the details of what everyone always says about evolution and focus on one or two specific words used when summarizing evolution and then claiming these words are meant outside of the context in which they are used and therefore we are all denying design.

You on the other hand are simply not getting it.

This is a poor argument, even from you.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 5:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:16:34 PM, fromantle wrote:
'A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections , with a future purpose in his mind's eye.
Natural selection, the blind unconcious automatic process that Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye.It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature , it is the blind watchmaker.
Richard Dawkins ' The Blind Watchmaker'
A brilliant description in a magnificent book.
Now you may well admire the beauty of the natural world as if it is a piece of planned design, so its a bit disconcerting to admire the work of a blind and purposeless process.
Yet many do just that, like the late Carl Sagon, with glazed eyes and lowered voice.
Is it not even more curious that the very brain we use to fathom and enjoy is the result of the purposeless activities of the blind watchmaker.
Don't get too ecstatic when you next see those Hubble pictures. :

First I would like to acknowledge V3nesl for his Godly wisdom in contrast to an Evolutionist like Richard Dawkins here, .. my God, my God, where is the wisdom in not just mistakenly uttering those words, but actually writing a book on "The Blind Watchmaker"?

I mean if a four year old child was to break her little watch she got for Christmas, and she had a blind uncle living with her family, do you think this simple 4 year old child would take her broken watch to blind-uncle to fix it?

But this does reveal the 'blindness' in not just the BB-Evolution theory, but in those who so religiously worship it also. Now as my brother V3nesl would put it; "get yourself a coffee and pull up a chair, and think this through", .. I have friends who were 'Watchmakers' (now retired), and I seen them work on and fix watches. I was amazed at the steadiness of their hands, looking through their magnifiers as they carefully placed those gears back into the watch after a cleaning. To even suggest a "Blind Watchmaker" is not just hilarious which would belong on a Jackass movie like "Bad Grandpa", but could be considered to be in bad taste, .. kind of mocking the blind. I can just see it;
Costumer coming to pick up his watch from the watchmaker: "Here you go sir, and oh, by the way, I let my blind brother put that back together for you, so I hope it's to your satisfaction!?"

But this does define the BB-Evolution stories, blindly put together by blind men who, like the Blind Watchmaker can't see how messed up there story really is. So those of us who walk in the light of our Lord Jesus Christ see this, and having pity try to explain it to our debating friends, but obviously to no avail.

Also, to say: "Now you may well admire the beauty of the natural world" to a blind man would be mean, even mocking.

________________
May God bless you with sight to see the darkness that men today, especially the Evolutionist walk in, and actually call people to follow them in!

Matthew 6:23
But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 7:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

The term natural cause must surely be a dangerous one , for the revolutionary idea of Darwin as so beautifully expressed by Richard Dawkins is that there is no natural cause natural selection is blind it has no direction.
We must not hold in human respect the random outcome.
Imagine a cat running around on the keys of a piano : now think of the effect of a Mozart piano sonata.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 7:48:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Suppose I gasped in awe and wonder at the double helix Crick and Watson revealed.
The question is how justified is my awe and wonder?
Why should I be amazed and awe struck ?
Remember I may be amazed at the impending thunder storm to learn later many had been drowned in the floods or burnt to death in fires caused by beautiful lightening.
Later in a more difficult part of his mind-bending book Mr Dawkins tackles the possible roll of chance in creating the first replicators. Being a layman the maths puts me in a bit of a spin but he is a bold and daring man.
Now I'm a great admirer of Shakespeare but guess what enough monkeys on enough keyboards could create his whole output! Can I ever read the Bard again properly.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:56:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 5:03:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Are you seriously arguing that if evolution were true we shouldn't have words like "purpose", "created", "design" and "intent"? Really?


That is correct. This would be testing prediction, that you claim to be so fond of. If X produces Y, then let's test and see if we have what X would produce.

Evolution can yield intelligent beings that converse and create things every day and thus need language to express that.

Do you really not see how circular your reasoning is?

You're not thinking, Ram. You're not being real with yourself, and it's probably because you're running from your creator. But that's a mistake - he is our friend, not our enemy. He's so beyond us that he's terrifying, but he is good. And he is infinite, so he enables true freedom, rather than restricting us.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:57:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 5:30:20 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/7/2015 6:16:34 PM, fromantle wrote:
'A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections , with a future purpose in his mind's eye.
Natural selection, the blind unconcious automatic process that Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye.It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature , it is the blind watchmaker.
Richard Dawkins ' The Blind Watchmaker'
A brilliant description in a magnificent book.
Now you may well admire the beauty of the natural world as if it is a piece of planned design, so its a bit disconcerting to admire the work of a blind and purposeless process.
Yet many do just that, like the late Carl Sagon, with glazed eyes and lowered voice.
Is it not even more curious that the very brain we use to fathom and enjoy is the result of the purposeless activities of the blind watchmaker.
Don't get too ecstatic when you next see those Hubble pictures. :

First I would like to acknowledge V3nesl for his Godly wisdom in contrast to an Evolutionist like Richard Dawkins here, .. my God, my God, where is the wisdom in not just mistakenly uttering those words, but actually writing a book on "The Blind Watchmaker"?


Why thank you, bro! And thanks for your voice here.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 5:20:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do we all agree that snow lakes look lovely and appear to have been designed? Do we all agree that they are not designed but simply a consequence of the laws of nature?

There is no purpose at all in the six-fold symmetry. It pleases us, but that's a consequence of human nature as it has evolved. In fact the concept of purpose does not even apply. "Purpose" only applies to intent ascribed to intelligence, and laws of nature operate impartially without intent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 5:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.

Of course life has evolved. The purpose throughout is obvious. Convergent evolution alone should show you there is purpose to the design.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 6:02:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 1:56:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2015 5:03:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Are you seriously arguing that if evolution were true we shouldn't have words like "purpose", "created", "design" and "intent"? Really?


That is correct. This would be testing prediction, that you claim to be so fond of. If X produces Y, then let's test and see if we have what X would produce.

What possible reason or justification could you possibly have to make that claim? Seriously, it is a literally non-sensical assertion. What possible aspect of evolution would prevent humans from having a word for making something, or intending to do something?

And good lord do you still not understand what a prediction is? The clue is in the PRE part; knowing what the answer is before you test is not a PRE diction. At best it is a POST diction.

And just FYI; as you seem to enjoy weird semantic arguments that completely ignore any context; when I say "good lord", I am using this as a common parlance expression of exasperation and incredulity. I am not using this phrase because I secretly believe in God.

Evolution can yield intelligent beings that converse and create things every day and thus need language to express that.

Do you really not see how circular your reasoning is?

Well no I don't. Because to be circular my premise must be reliant on my conclusion, which it isn't.

At least when I accuse you of equivocation, straw men, and circular reasoning, which you use excessively, I justify it with detailed reasoning rather than simply asserting that it's circular without providing any justification as you do here.

You're not thinking, Ram. You're not being real with yourself, and it's probably because you're running from your creator. But that's a mistake - he is our friend, not our enemy. He's so beyond us that he's terrifying, but he is good. And he is infinite, so he enables true freedom, rather than restricting us.

Non sensical, illogical arguments? Check.
A number of assertions without any justification or support? Check.
Random rant about God/Creationism/how illogical I am? Check.

You are three for three in terms in this thread!

All you need to do is start ignoring posts and you'll have the Creationist home run!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 6:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:58:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.

Of course life has evolved. The purpose throughout is obvious. Convergent evolution alone should show you there is purpose to the design.

If purpose was obvious, it should be unequivocally demonstrable.

It isn't.

Therefore purpose isn't obvious.

Indeed, you see purpose because you are anthropomorphizing nature with human qualities that you cannot show.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 6:14:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 6:03:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:58:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.

Of course life has evolved. The purpose throughout is obvious. Convergent evolution alone should show you there is purpose to the design.

If purpose was obvious, it should be unequivocally demonstrable.

It isn't.

Therefore purpose isn't obvious.

Indeed, you see purpose because you are anthropomorphizing nature with human qualities that you cannot show.

Sure purpose is obvious. Take the eye for example. The obvious purpose is to see. That's why it evolved over 40 times independantly.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 6:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 6:14:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 6:03:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:58:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.

Of course life has evolved. The purpose throughout is obvious. Convergent evolution alone should show you there is purpose to the design.

If purpose was obvious, it should be unequivocally demonstrable.

It isn't.

Therefore purpose isn't obvious.

Indeed, you see purpose because you are anthropomorphizing nature with human qualities that you cannot show.

Sure purpose is obvious. Take the eye for example. The obvious purpose is to see. That's why it evolved over 40 times independantly.

The eye see's. That's it's function, but for it to be it's purpose you require some form of intent, which you cannot show.

As a result of natural laws and unguided processes concerning the formation of the solar system, chemistry and dynamic orbits a grand comet will leave a large trail of ice that reflects sunlight and can be visible across the sky even during daylight. This is what a comet does, it's not its purpose.

In the same way, the eye is a result of natural laws and unguided processes that while different in nature, and different in complexity can be thought of in the same way.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 7:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 5:20:59 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Do we all agree that snow lakes look lovely and appear to have been designed? Do we all agree that they are not designed but simply a consequence of the laws of nature?


No, the two are not mutually exclusive. Do we agree that a bowling bowl rolls down a lane due only to newtonian physics? Sure. But it still might have been aimed by a sentient bowler.

One of the things I might say in all this: If one is not willing to think carefully about what intent itself is, looking for intent is going to be kind of pointless.

So snowflakes are not individually designed, but they sure might ultimately be a part of the large design.

There is no purpose at all in the six-fold symmetry.

How do you know this? Just a side question there, not critical to the overall point.

It pleases us, but that's a consequence of human nature as it has evolved.

Really? So ancient homonids in hot Africa were somehow selected because they'd love the shape of snow when they invented the microscope and got someplace cold?

In fact the concept of purpose does not even apply. "Purpose" only applies to intent ascribed to intelligence, and laws of nature operate impartially without intent.

Well then, back to my original question: Where does the concept of purpose come from, then? If nature is this purposeless engine and we are the product of that engine, don't you find it just a wee bit amazing that we can design and intend and do it all on purpose?
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:23:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 7:41:54 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:20:59 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Do we all agree that snow lakes look lovely and appear to have been designed? Do we all agree that they are not designed but simply a consequence of the laws of nature?


No, the two are not mutually exclusive. Do we agree that a bowling bowl rolls down a lane due only to newtonian physics? Sure. But it still might have been aimed by a sentient bowler.

I think you are saying that natural laws themselves can be attributed to magical creation. I don't see how that can be disproved. All we can say is that magical origins of natural laws are not required to explain what is observed.

There is no purpose at all in the six-fold symmetry.

How do you know this? Just a side question there, not critical to the overall point.

Because most snowflakes are irregular, and they fall to the ground and melt exactly the same. The symmetry comes from the environment around the snowflake being exactly uniform, so the crystal formation is identical in each branch. Also, a consequence of natural law does not meet the definition of "having a purpose." That's an attribute of intelligent intent, and there is no intelligence involved.

It pleases us, but that's a consequence of human nature as it has evolved.

Really? So ancient homonids in hot Africa were somehow selected because they'd love the shape of snow when they invented the microscope and got someplace cold?

Natural selection only works well enough to provide a survival advantage over other creatures in some ecological niche. No one claims that it leads to perfection in which every attribute is formed as a consequence of natural selection carried out to the ultimate degree. A creature that survives with a comparative advantage of intelligence needs have a natural curiosity about the world, so he pokes and prods until he understands what's going on. The survival advantage comes from the understanding. Deriving pleasure from the natural world is the first step in achieving understanding of it.

In fact the concept of purpose does not even apply. "Purpose" only applies to intent ascribed to intelligence, and laws of nature operate impartially without intent.

Well then, back to my original question: Where does the concept of purpose come from, then? If nature is this purposeless engine and we are the product of that engine, don't you find it just a wee bit amazing that we can design and intend and do it all on purpose?

Natural selection produces intelligence as a survival advantage. The advantage comes first from understanding, for example knowing where and when there is edible fruit. Once there is understanding, then survival is further enhanced by being able to plan. The humans can plant an apple orchard for the purpose of enhancing their chance of survival. You ask if it is amazing that humans can design things? Yes, it is amazing best it is not obvious how it came about, just as snowflakes are amazing because it is not obvious how they derived from simple crystal physics. But if something is amazing, that does not imply that there is real magic at work.
janesix
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:20:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 6:43:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 6:14:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 6:03:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:58:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/10/2015 5:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 9:22:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/9/2015 8:04:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/9/2015 7:07:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/8/2015 11:00:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:35:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:12:18 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't see what the dilemma is.

Atheists have no problem with there being no designer. They are confident there is a natural cause to everything.

But what is this word "purpose" that Dawkins uses? He says a designer would have a 'purpose', but there is no designer, hence no purpose. So where does Dawkins get the concept of purpose from? Clearly it comes from outside of evolution, by his own logic, so where does it come from?

This sort of flaw runs throughout Dawkins' thinking. He seems to be unaware of a whole layer of meaning-world assumption that he has built his noise-driven world upon. He's the retired guy living on a social security check who complains about all the bums living on the government dole.

Dawkins doesn't use purpose to mean that there is some external purpose; hopefully you're not enough of an idiot to think that Dawkins using words in this way indicates he secretly believes or implies that things were designed.

We don't have appropriate language for describing and conveying how naturalistic evolution works without resorting to common concepts and terms that we use every day. Unfortunately, the closest terms and phrases are things such as "purpose", "intent", "design" and such like because the natural processes are unguided analogs of these things. It's not that anyone believes that things are designed, have purpose, or intent; and you would have to be colossally stupid to thing that the words are used to mean this.

That means to convey this natural process you have to resort to using such terms, and hope that the reader is smart enough to understand the exact context in which these words are used. You know, by dedicating a number of books to explaining an unguided process and how it can generate the illusion of design.

You have to resort to those words like design because they are the appropriate words. Design is obvious. Dawkins and his kind feel obligated to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to try to show it's just an "illusion of design", and have failed to prove it.

Common descent is effectively as close to a fact as it's possible to be, so yes it's proven and in many cases fairly well understood and well evidenced, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

If design was obvious you could demstrate it, rather than repeating about how obvious it is. Life obviously looks evolved and I have demonstrated why many, many times all the way from the molecular to the wide scale trends in taxonomy.

Considering evolution is basically the study of how complex biological things can arise without being designed and without intent, and does this rigorously; it is ridiculous to argue that all of this explanation and detail effectively ceases to exist because we happen to use a word that you decide means something utterly different than the context in which its used.

I can't even understand why you have even bothered to make this a thing.

Rigorously? How have scientists proven "rigorously" that organisms aren't designed? How would you demonstrate that?

They have rigorously demonstrated that life has evolved; and therefore hasn't been designed. You may refer to any number of my recent evolution threads for the demonstration.

Also, I refer you back to the rest of my post, detailing why your argument here; the semantic cherry picking of words out of the context in which they are used is a ridiculous argument; you seem to have missed all of that in your reply.

Of course life has evolved. The purpose throughout is obvious. Convergent evolution alone should show you there is purpose to the design.

If purpose was obvious, it should be unequivocally demonstrable.

It isn't.

Therefore purpose isn't obvious.

Indeed, you see purpose because you are anthropomorphizing nature with human qualities that you cannot show.

Sure purpose is obvious. Take the eye for example. The obvious purpose is to see. That's why it evolved over 40 times independantly.

The eye see's. That's it's function, but for it to be it's purpose you require some form of intent, which you cannot show.

As a result of natural laws and unguided processes concerning the formation of the solar system, chemistry and dynamic orbits a grand comet will leave a large trail of ice that reflects sunlight and can be visible across the sky even during daylight. This is what a comet does, it's not its purpose.

In the same way, the eye is a result of natural laws and unguided processes that while different in nature, and different in complexity can be thought of in the same way.

The intent is self-evident. The designer wanted organisms to be able to sense things. That's why there are eyes and ears other sensory organs.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:30:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:23:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

Natural selection only works well enough to provide a survival advantage over other creatures in some ecological niche. No one claims that it leads to perfection

Perfection isn't really the issue. It's more that perception of beauty in snowflakes would seem to be quite irrelevant to survival one way or another. You have a very interesting attribute of human nature that is a big stretch to try to attribute to evolution.

A creature that survives with a comparative advantage of intelligence needs have a natural curiosity about the world,

Well, ok, I have to ponder that a little. If we're going to use intelligence, it needs to be functional intelligence, that certainly seems logical.


Natural selection produces intelligence as a survival advantage. The advantage comes first from understanding, for example knowing where and when there is edible fruit.

No, I don't think so. Finding fruit will do just as well as understanding where fruit is. And this is further emphasized by the fact that many highly successful species, like the cockroach, don't appear to have any understanding. Humans are not any specially successful species. You cannot explain the uniqueness of humanity as some sort of survival mechanism because other species do as well or better without our features. Our understanding is for a purpose other than survival, I think, and think that to be quite obvious, actually.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 9:30:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:23:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

Natural selection only works well enough to provide a survival advantage over other creatures in some ecological niche. No one claims that it leads to perfection

Perfection isn't really the issue. It's more that perception of beauty in snowflakes would seem to be quite irrelevant to survival one way or another. You have a very interesting attribute of human nature that is a big stretch to try to attribute to evolution.

A creature that survives with a comparative advantage of intelligence needs have a natural curiosity about the world,

Well, ok, I have to ponder that a little. If we're going to use intelligence, it needs to be functional intelligence, that certainly seems logical.


Natural selection produces intelligence as a survival advantage. The advantage comes first from understanding, for example knowing where and when there is edible fruit.

No, I don't think so. Finding fruit will do just as well as understanding where fruit is. And this is further emphasized by the fact that many highly successful species, like the cockroach, don't appear to have any understanding. Humans are not any specially successful species. You cannot explain the uniqueness of humanity as some sort of survival mechanism because other species do as well or better without our features. Our understanding is for a purpose other than survival, I think, and think that to be quite obvious, actually.

And an assertion supported only because "you said so".

Many different species have pursued many different avenues for survival that are very different. Some species of fish have males that attach themselves to the female and slowly absorb it. You have species of insect where the female eats the male after mating.

You have colony insects that produce perfect sterile drones from a single queen with allocation of work among her clones. Indeed, many species are quite successful without being multi-cellular, or having sexual reproduction.

There isn't one path of perfect success open to each species; what is successful and useful is dependent on the particular circumstances. Sometimes that could involve getting smaller, sometimes getting bigger, sometimes smarter; sometimes getting better eye sight or a better sense of smell. Each species is the product of cumulative changes that were successful for it at various times in it's evolutionary history.

Arguing that intelligence doesn't aid survival because some species are successful without intelligence is incredibly naive as a result. Sometimes intelligence won't matter, sometimes it will.

It is not possible to argue, for example, that greater intelligence that leads to improved tool use; including spears, use of fire, utilizing aspects of the environment for making clothing and shelter doesn't assist in survival.

Nor is it possible to argue that being able to understand the world and therefore predict actions and events; such as using more advanced strategies to target prey, or to understand that it's going to be hot, or cold, or rain in a few hours doesn't assist in survival.

It is neither possible to argue that having better language skills to communicate and convey meaning and information at a higher rate wouldn't aid in hunting, teaching and coordination in a group would not aid in making a group better and thus aiding in survival over those with lesser language skills.

Nor is it possible to argue that having a better understanding of the future, allowing planning, storage and hoarding of food, reducing resource wastage by not making single use tools (primitive hominids appear to have made single use tools repeatedly and did not keep them for future events) does not assist with overall survivability.

Indeed, apes are not great natural hunters like cats, they're not as fast runners as horses, their digestive systems aren't as good at digesting any one specific diet, and like many other (but not all) mammals, aren't great at rapid reproducing. Given those aspects, increased intelligence is an excellent survival trait; because it is the one trait that you can give species that can mitigate or even eliminate issues brought about by generally poor biology in other respects.

Our success as a species is solely down to our intelligence. This is what separates us from animals, so the argument that intelligence isn't a good method of becoming a successful species is simply non-sensical.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 3:34:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 9:30:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:23:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Natural selection produces intelligence as a survival advantage. The advantage comes first from understanding, for example knowing where and when there is edible fruit.

No, I don't think so. Finding fruit will do just as well as understanding where fruit is. And this is further emphasized by the fact that many highly successful species, like the cockroach, don't appear to have any understanding. Humans are not any specially successful species. You cannot explain the uniqueness of humanity as some sort of survival mechanism because other species do as well or better without our features. Our understanding is for a purpose other than survival, I think, and think that to be quite obvious, actually.

You are saying that there are ecological niches that provide survival without intelligence. Squid and termites have more biomass than humans, for example. The survival advantage of intelligence is that it allows adapting to a greater variety of environments. I think it's easy to see how the path to intelligence starts. An ability to recognize repeating patterns is an advantage, because that better enables the species to catch and use food. Each increment improves survivability.