Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages (page 8)

cofty

Be careful Tec , people may follow you .....

That is without a doubt the intention. It was confirmed by somebody whose friend had a narrow escape just recently.

tec

Tec within the last 4 weeks you told me you dont have the time or will to read the science books and literature, if you remember I said it probably isnt best to chip in to such discussions with that stance, i like you alot, but it is frustrating to find you here doing it again, not because you are not allowed, but because it is misleading and you even agreed in a fashion.

You're going to have to link me to that discussion, Snare, because I cannot imagine me saying the above. If I know nothing on a topic, then you're right... I have no call to be speaking on the matter.

As for THIS discussion, I HAVE been reading the chapters along with Kate. I don't have the book, but the first few are free on amazon.

The topic we discussed this in had an op asking for opinions, so you defended being part of that paticular thread and I didnt say a word. However, it was just word play, because ANY thread on science or atheism, you arrive and discuss things you have no insight or knowledge of. This is ok, but you dont make it clear and talk as if you have evidence of legitimate controversy, where there is NONE in reality. If pushed you will admit, your evidence is a voice or feeling that you alone experience in conjunction with your personal intepretation of SOME of the bible. This is not balanced...

Again, please link me. I do not know what you are talking about.

When we encourage people to look at science, we are saying 'hey go look at the evidence and peer reviewed theories on subject x' but Tec, you are asking people to 'listen to me and my theories on x'

I don't want people to listen to me at all. I do the same as you...put it out there; and others can do with that what they will. If I speak on faith, then people can look to Christ to see if there is truth in it or not. If I speak about science... well, again, people can look for themselves.

I dont think people realise this when they first come here, when you continue to denounce something you admit you have not taken the time to examine, it is utter time wasting and I personally ponder how such a nice person could be so unconscionable.

What exactly have I denounced?

True enough I guess however the physical does equal the visible. There are many things that have only become observable thanks to technological advances over time. Things that were equated to or attributed to the spiritual have been found to actually have been physcial.

I think the key word there is 'attributed' to the spiritual. But regardless, do you have an example, so I undersatnd better what you are talking about? Thanks!

It also predicts what is to be discovered. The periodic table and particle physics as evidenced most recently by the Higgs Boson discovery have all been built up based not just on verification of what can be tested but also based on the predicated nature of what could not be tested at the time.

Right now there is the graviton, a hypothetical elementary particle. Experiments are underway that seek to fill in more information that would clarify the expectations on gravitons. That's science - it may change but it's not just a shot in the dark.

The nature of dark matter and dark energy - the fact that we think they exist yet cannot be observed is not the product of some random musings by a bunch of over eager geeks. It's science. It is predicting what we think is there to be found.

Yes, it can. I too look forward to more discoveries.

The other thing that it certainly is not is a bunch of anti-theists searching for yet more mud to sling at those with faith. It's simply people using logic and reason to narrow down the search for solutions to questions that we as yet cannot fully answer.

Well, it is people using evidence and following the evidence. It might not always be people using logic and reason ; )

But I agree that science is not anti-theists looking for mud to sling at those with faith. I would never have thought that it was.

Peace,

tammy

tec

You do love... and I mean you do love... to spread rumors, lies, propaganda about me, Cofty, as well as about anyone else who has the same faith in the same One, as I do. Doesn't matter if something is true or not. You have proven this. Some will believe you, and some will be able to see through you. Some might even simply ask me the truth of something i have or have not done. But I have no power over what others believe or think, or even who others believe. That is upon them.

But I am pretty much just going to have to ignore you from here on out. Others will believe what they want from that as they see fit.

Peace,

tammy

Etude

I WAS RIGHT! I finally found it. It was you tec. How little you have changed. It was almost a year ago on 12/23/2012 that I posted my last comment on a thread titled “I can’t imagine not believing in God”, started by MsGrowingGirl20. It runs 33 pages. So if anyone wants to look at it, start at the end. I don’t mean it as an insult but, everything seems to bounce off you. I know I was direct enough and reasonable for you to make at least some admissions, primarily that your position is unsustainable. I’m not saying you should abandon it, but please to don’t try to justify it. Just say you believe because you say so and leave it at that.

tec

Your post to me on this thread was not about my words, Etude.

I remember you now too, even without checking the link. Just the reminder of the thread. I couldn't place you either, lol.

Peace,

tammy

adamah

TEC Said-

As for THIS discussion, I HAVE been reading the chapters along with Kate. I don't have the book, but the first few are free on amazon.

And kudos to TEC for reading along with the thread under discussion. As we've always said, a truely faithful believer has nothing to fear in examining the evidence, since their beliefs SHOULD in theory (well, per their theology, that is) be strengthed upon examination of counter-evidence. In fact, reading Dawkins' books should be more faith-building than even reading..... (wait for it!!)..... the Bible!

Xanthippe

So Kate any more thoughts on chapter 2?

KateWild

I had thought that such lies about Einstein would have been settled by now. KateWild, where do you get such inaccurate information?-Etude

I started a thread about Einstein’s religious beliefs, as Adam quite rightly noted. There were lots of quotes on it, including the fact that Einstien expressed that finer speculation of science springs from religious feeling. So he is saying what caused scientific enquiry for him. It was the same for me. Maybe it's a Jewish thing, he expressed this in 1929 in New York. At this conference apparantly other scientists were saying words to the effect of keeping God out of the lab.

This is in a book called "Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology" by Max Jammer.

Sadly I mistakenly used the word faith instead of religious feeling. This is just semantics, not lies. Both Dawkin's and Einstein bring, religion and faith into science in different ways.

Please read the thread Etude, I am sure you will enjoy it. Thanks Kate xx

KateWild

So Kate any more thoughts on chapter 2? Xant

LOL!, I dont mind where the OP goes, as long as everyone is having fun. Chapter 1 thread is still going strong last I checked. I am impressed that Tammy is reading it too. But I will just emphasise again. I found three interesting points in chapter 2.

The hairpin theory, gene pools and artificial / natural selection.

The point on artificial / natural selection I found somewhat convoluted with lots of irelevant information about dog breeding. I found it boring and I missed the point until Braincleaned highlighted it in a more succinct way. Adam, thinks I missed the point due to low IQ. He can try and intellectually intimidate me as much as he likes. It doesn't really wash with any posters though so I don't mind. Love to you Adam xx

Overall I found it a laborious chapter, but I am bias. In Ch3 I will endeavour to be less bias and give Dawkin's more of a chance to teach me some more new things about evolution that I don't yet know.

Kate xx

Xanthippe

I don't get why Dawkins felt the need to teach me all about Platoism, essentialism and rabbits. I still don't get the connection.

He is talking about the human idea of the immutability of species. The idea that each species is separate and can never change. He says that to suggest that a rabbit now might be different from a rabbit a million years ago might violate an internal taboo. Psycholgists, he says, studying language development tell us that children are natural essentialists and that maybe they have to be to learn to divide things into discreet categories each with it's own unique noun. Think of a child's book with a picture and a word on each page, dog, cat, cow, horse, rabbit. How could we learn any other way? Then we have to unlearn it with evolution.

Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

Share this