Richard Dawkins is a bumbling old materialist whose ideas are backed up
by straw-men that only he and his kin believe in.

I challenge anyone to present any of his thoughts, aside from
commonalities, that are not incoherent. Go on.

"J Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
news:fvns3l$uu0$2@aioe.org...

LOL. You fuckwit. What's wrong with commonalities? Sober up and then we
talk, ok?

regards
Milan

On May 5, 6:18 pm, "Milan" yahoo.com> wrote:

Who the fuck is Richard Dawkins?

"Milan" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:689fdgF2pjdtcU1@mid.individual.net...

Call someone a fuckwit and then invite them to talk?

Sounds like the kind of environment that antagonists thrive in.

BOfL

"J Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
news:fvns3l$uu0$2@aioe.org...

Ever heard two people talking to each other in a different language, both
getting frustrated at the others lack of understanding?

BOfL

"brian fletcher" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:481f8dca$0$17511$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

On May 5, 1:53 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

Lets start with the blind watchmaker theory then and if you can
demolosh that I got more of his cool theories;

One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the
universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as
a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into
existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far
greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins,
professor of zoology at Oxford University, demonstrates in this
brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the
analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind
yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no
purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in
nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

On May 5, 9:53 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

Dawkins suggest that it is contrary to evidence that consciousness
(god) is likely to have been present at the start of the universe,
rather than burgeoning after a long period of evolution, thus being a
phenomenon that appears late in the history of he universe.

Dawkins has set out a few thoughts on why he thinks that god is a
delusion in a 400 page book of the same name. Personally I found
everything in that book to be "coherent", even when I thought some of
the ideas were less worthy than others.

Perhaps it might be better for you to pick and choose on eor two of
his "incoherent" thoughts for us to sift through?
Have you read any of his books yourself?

On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:47:31 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

So on the one hand there is purpose in mind, on the other no purpose in
mind. Seems too restrictive to me.

"Natural selection" is purpose that comes from no mind. IOW, "Purpose"
does not apply here.

If there is no purpose in mind there remains a mind. A blind watchmaker
still accepts the existence of a watchmaker. Natural 'selection' demands
that which selects. 'Natural' implies that there is also something not
natural at work somewhere.

The error is not in the answers (purpose vs no purpose) it is in the
process used to reach both. If anything needs to be thrown into the dust
bin, it is this.

There is a significantly pernicious problem with the kind of language
used by precticioners of evolutionary thought generally. This includes
Evolutionary Psychology, neo-Darwinism, Social Darwinism and other
allied fields.
Whilst they play lip-service to a non purposeful process of
evolutionary change, they have since the time of Darwin adopted the
language of the religious dogme they sought to replace. Thus
Evolutionary theory is repleate with false teleologies, and myths such
as "evolutionary pressure" and "adaptive strategy" all which imply is
not assume a deep sense of purpose to change.
Dawkins is guilty, as any, of this myth making and sows confusion
amoungst those he hopes to convert from intelligent design.

On May 6, 1:03 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote: