Shark Evolution

by metatron 135 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Ruby456

  cantleave -

  I was talking about how the evidence is used. in the back of my mind was a paper that somebody had linked in on another thread (I think it was snareandracket) which made me do some research about competition and the drive towards economic competition and success and this eventually led me to look at what is taught in some schools.

  Also Dawkins on the 25th anniversary of his book the Selfish Gene admitted that he ought to have entitiled his book The Cooperative Gene. The gene must cooperate in the genome and genome itself is part of the cell which is a part of the organism, so this is where I'm coming from.

  And thanks for replying cantleave i'd love to contine our discussion but have used up my time. see you later
• 

  Viviane

  other non religious fundamentalists are similar - they just know they are right and others are wrong because they have read it somewhere authoritative.

  But what no one has explained is how that makes Richard Dawkins a fundamentalist.
• 

  Ruby456

  viv - I'm sure you are misquoting or misunderstanding me - pls go back and read and paste what I said about Richard Dawkins being a fundamentalist
• 

  Viviane

  I don't think it's either since I directly quoted you. You talked about a holy book having all of the answers and I am asking how Richard Dawkins adheres to a holy book or is in any way a fundamentalist as you described.
• 

  Ruby456

  Viv love we are going round in circles. I thought you might link to a previous post of mine where I said that Dawkins can be fundamentalistic when he wants to argue against religious fundamentalists - thats all. On the other hand the problem is that when we want to make our arguments precise we have to simplify things and set them out in a seemingly black and white way. Now if this is what Dawkins is doing then we need to give him, and ourselves when we construct our arguments I guess, the benefit of the doubt.
• 

  Viviane

  On the other hand the problem is that when we want to make our arguments precise we have to simplify things and set them out in a seemingly black and white way.

  Actually, that's backwards. When you want to be more precise, you need to use more words and explain the nuance. Gain resolution rather than lose it.

  Can you explain what you meant by "fundamentalist atheist"? Use all the words you need. Nuance is a lovely thing.
• 

  snare&racket

  A fundametalist atheist....REALLY doesn't believe in god... and takes the words of apostle Sagan literally.

  Kinda contradicts the bible that says everyone is not atheist, but believes.... lol.
• 

  Ruby456

  no thank you viv - I don't have great confidnece in your physics or your definition of what constitutes being precise - so I will respectfully decline your invitation. woo indeed
• 

  Viviane

  Have I said something incorrect or are you simply unable or unwilling to define what you mean? This isn't the first time you've claimed all sorts of knowledge and then backed down with the opportunity to present it or clarify obvious errors (like saying I misquoted you when I directly quoted you).
• 

  KateWild

  Dawkins can be fundamentalistic when he wants to argue against religious fundamentalists - thats all.- Ruby

  I agree, many people that have come across him view him as a fundie. It's common knowledge. Christopher Hitchens is also refered to by many as a fundie too. Some posters want to be pedantic. I wouldn't let it concern you.

  Looks like this thread has gone down the rabbit hole. LOL!

  Kate xx