He specifically states that 'metabolism first' versus 'replication first' is "a barren debate".
His entire book is a resolution to this false dichotomy.
If you don't get that you might as well have not opened the book.
Posts by cofty
-
52how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
-
52
how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
cofty
regarding the origin of life biologists like Richard Dawkins are committed to genetics first as explanatory tools
Where has Dawkins shown a commitment to "genetics first" in regards to origin of life?
while biochemists are committed to metabolism first explanations
What do you base that on?
I tend to favour the latter like Martin and Lane do.
Once again you are misrepresenting Nick Lane on a very important point of his book. One of the most important insights he presents is that the metabolism first - replication first debate is a false dichotomy.
-
52
how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
cofty
Ruby - Your thread title implies that "we" have a desire for something called absolute truth.
I have never come across the idea outside of a religious context. I'm just asking what you mean.
-
52
how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
cofty
Page 2 and you still haven't defined "absolute truth".
The only claims for absolute truth I have ever heard have come from religion. Can you think of a secular example?
-
48
"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?
by Saename ini often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.
moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.
i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.
-
-
-
52
how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
cofty
dawkins only represents one side of this fascinating debate - I tend to favour the other side - the self organizing complexity side - Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
Doesn't sound as if you have ever read Dawkins then. - Cofty
i'm always open to being proved wrong, cofty. where's your evidence - Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
Self organising complexity is a major theme of all of Dawkins science books. From memory the chapter in "The Greatest Show on Earth" called "You did it yourself in nine months" is all about self organising complexity. It's literally all over his writing.
-
58
Reading The Bible Again After Leaving
by pale.emperor inat the moment i dont beleive in anything.
im pretty much an open book, but my critical mind is very alert to bullshit.
but anyway i decided to re-read the bible with a non jw filter.. i researched online first which is supposed to be the best translation out there.
-
-
cofty
Hiemere - I think you missed my point. It's hard to tell when you write such wordy replies.
I don't care for the label of atheist because it tells us absolutely nothing about a person except the trivial detail that they don't believe in the god of theism. So what? Why should anybody be defined by one thing they don't believe? There are lots of things I don't believe in but none of them come with a label.
I am FOR reason and science and rational thinking and an evidence-based worldview. Stalin was against all of those things. The fact that he also did not believe in god is as irrelevant as the fact he had a mustache. He was an ideologue. For you to even raise the name of Stalin in this context demonstrates a basic misunderstanding.
I am rational because of my worldview and that leads me to do good things. You are irrational by definition and yet despite that you also do good things. Well done. Now if you could just get over your superstitions!
-
52
how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...
by Ruby456 inor do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
-
-
cofty
dawkins only represents one side of this fascinating debate - I tend to favour the other side - the self organizing complexity side
Doesn't sound as if you have ever read Dawkins then.
-
48
"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?
by Saename ini often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.
moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.
i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.
-
-
cofty
Watch the videos Fink posted Vidqun.
You have been willingly duped.
-
58
Reading The Bible Again After Leaving
by pale.emperor inat the moment i dont beleive in anything.
im pretty much an open book, but my critical mind is very alert to bullshit.
but anyway i decided to re-read the bible with a non jw filter.. i researched online first which is supposed to be the best translation out there.
-
-
cofty
Both think they are enlightened and blame things: the Bible, religion, atheism, communism. - Hiemere
The communism of Stalin was an irrational ideology in just the same way that all religions are irrational ideologies.
Check out the history of genetic research under Stalin for example. In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience", more than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison, fired, or executed and scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.
You are making a false comparison. When you can point to a dystopian society run on the principles of secular humanism, inspired by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume etc then you will have a point.
Atheism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of building a better world. It is an inevitable corollary of being rational.