Richard Dawkins is a creationist. Here's why.

@imans,

imans wrote:

babble urself farmer that confuse itself with animals to possess for any sense of livin pretense being god, if any powerful figure show being **** u would run to imitate what could mean **** life

what babble is u who cant ever say a word, while who can say a letter watch out if any sentence is meant

Quote:

piece of dirty moron head

0 Replies

@JohnJones,

JohnJones wrote:

Man created in Gods image simply means that we have the power to impose forms on random nature. Even Dawkins says that there are appearances or forms that we create - designoids. But he never tackles the question of where the forms come from, choosing instead to argue against the much stupider idea of where the mechanic comes from.

Dawkins is an animist. He believes that forms are mechanical creations.

Dawkins is also a disgruntled theist. A theist because he believes that nature has forms or designs, and disgruntled because he thinks they are illusory or not significant. But forms are not mechanical in any case.

Dawkins need not be disgruntled. I believe in everything Dawkins says. But he simply hasn't followed through on his own position. He muddles forms with mechanisms, selfishness with sin, survival with reincarnation. The list goes on.

As far as I know, most science writers are not concerned about the issues of postmodern philosophy. Should they be?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

u r such dirt exhibitn it of anything u mean or type, piece of **** callin u that has nothing to do with violence since u r ****, on the contrary only what is relative to true zero values so the true peace are the ones that **** on **** immediately showin the right thing to do everywhere and about everything

a thing is to b more it is an essential rule that only what is true know so what is right as being existing right, **** u and ur explosions piece of **** head that cant mean but take advantage of any belief showin how u should never exist since believin to u is for being u, provin the **** u r

and **** u and ur master belief shitty, again i repeat to ur eyes shitty that u didnt see yet the **** u r becomin more true **** clearly this is the end comin from up, enjoy ur futur as u r

and put ur **** pervert wills to confuse everyone in ur ass, it is obvious that im too superior without a word or with while it is more obvious now the **** u r in truth that mean to try playin the role of gettin classes of master to get a right of anything as a dog of **** u would run to enjoy

and put all ur signs in ur ass depth, **** is the most obvious fact so u cant know any sign, while we can say the sign in watchin u, it is a matter of time to handle the gatherin of all **** bodies in truth before our futur pleasures in seein u burnin with ur **** life smells everywhere

0 Replies

@ZarathustraReborn,

You said "All I would like to know is why the same "misrepresentation of physical forms" logic is not applied to the concept of creation itself? "Creation" is a manufactured concept, one which helps us understand something the human mind is inherently incapable of understanding. Arguing ad absurdum benefits no one. "

I'm not saying that physical forms are misrepresented by people. I'm not saying that we can only have approximations to how things really are. I'm not saying anything like that.

Creation is a manufactured concept, just like the elctron is. The electron is a bounded object. It has physical boundaries. Now, these boundaries are manufactured. By us. WE say where the elctron starts and ends.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You said
"I believe in a progressive manifestation of focused covalent bonding, and surface chemistry bonds coupled with progressive solutions to an energy balance "

Chemical bonds and chemistry are not "focused", "progressive" or "balanced", unless you want to anthropomorphise chemistry. These terms arent in a chemical lexicon.

1 Reply

@imans,

Difficulties with the language I can handle, but I can't handle idiosyncratic abbreviations and contradictory punctuation.

1 Reply

@JohnJones,

surface chemistry reactions , when in a sequence, WILL be focused. There are a limited number of reactions that can occur in adsorption/desorption and Freundlich reactions. No god need interfere.
Surfave "linkages" have been going on in predictable sequences for mega-millenia.
Dont be confused by your thinking. What may appear random is merely a function of the available ions and chemical surfaces.

1 Reply

@JohnJones,

good go die then peacefully, u r not to handle anything

0 Replies

@farmerman,

the word I should have spelled is "Surface linkeages"

0 Replies

@JohnJones,

Quote:

Kant and Wittgenstein exercise a confusion that need not muddle the point I am making. Against Dawkins and the creationists I am saying that the material world does not, cannot, present objects (such as life-forms) to us, because there is no material property that tells us where one object starts and another begins. This is self-evident even to the most hardened of atheists. A form does that. And Dawkins and the materialists forget the fact that form needs to be created. THAT is the the intelligence of design. The thing in itself of Kant isn't a hidden object from recent Kantian analyses. It's simply the name we put to an object when we deny the identifying conditions of an object. You see, objects are not items of existence, they are items of identification.

To assert that "the material world cannot present objects to us" -- is to abstract this impotency from a traditional be-ing claim. Which is, that there are entities which exist independent of experience (its general characteristics); and then afterwards attribute to them those very properties that they were denied as having. An oxymoron-ic act. Which is why material bodies are not things in themselves, things independent of extrospection and conception. They DO have "outlines" around them in commonsense perceptions and our classifications of them can be legit, because they are products of sense and intellection (not something "beyond" the latter!).

You are referring to the "transcendental realist", one species of which takes material phenomena as things in themselves, and then falls into problems trying to explain how an outer view or description of something could be how it exists independent of observation and description. Thus you preach here of "no material property [...] tells us where one object starts and another begins" because you refer to its treatment from the viewpoint of the transcendental realist: As stuff unconditioned / not wrought by conscious faculties, or lacking such capacity to assign borders and taxonomic efforts to itself -- no sensation of itself; no understanding of itself; despite perversely exhibiting just that as the knowable things in themselves of a pansomatic ideology.

Kant: "The transcendental realism [...] is necessarily left in doubt, and obliged to give way to empirical idealism [Cartesian skepticism], because it considers the objects of the external senses as something different from the senses themselves, taking mere phenomena as independent beings, existing outside us [in the metaphysical sense]. [...] If the psychologist likes to take phenomena for things by themselves, then, whether he admit into his system, as a materialist, matter only, or, as a spiritualist, thinking beings only (according to the form of our own internal sense), or, as a dualist, both, as things existing in themselves, he will always be driven by his mistake to invent theories as to how that which is not a thing in itself, but a phenomenon only, could exist in itself [that way]."

"[...] The transcendental idealist [...] may admit the existence of matter [...] For [...] he considers matter [...] a phenomenon only [...] External objects [...] (bodies), are phenomena only [...] External things, therefore, exist by the same right as I myself, both on the immediate testimony of my self-consciousness, with this difference only [...] With reference to the reality of external objects, I need as little trust to inference, as with reference to the reality of the object of my internal sense (my thoughts), both being nothing but representations, the immediate perception (consciousness) of which is at the same time a sufficient proof of their reality. The transcendental idealist is, therefore, an empirical realist, and allows to matter, as a phenomenon, a reality which need not be inferred, but may be immediately perceived."

0 Replies

Richard Dawkins is a creationist. Here's why.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know