Posts by KateWild

posted

220
serious question for evolutionist,
by unstopableravens in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
KateWild

LOL! funny thread. I needed cheering up today.

Well, unstop...I am very surprised no one has recommended you read Dawkins. I don't think I have discredited him in my review. The processes he has written about are logical and I can't dispute them.

He is however an arrogant fundementalist, that is concerned religious nuts are taking over the world and they are to be compared with Holocaust deniers.

But I agree with many on the thread, to enter into the discussion, one needs to have something to contribute.

Love Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

Cofty,

I promised you I would read this, and you haven't even commented TSK TSK!!!

Only joking cofty, you have probs had a fun weekend with your family. I love you really Kate xx
99
Survey: Who Here Believe In God/The Bible? Who Are Not Sure? Who Do Not Believe?
by minimus in
1. jw
2. friends
i think there are many that still want to believe in a god but just aren't sure.. personally, do you believe in a god?.

are you a "spiritual" person?.
KateWild

trying to recruit others to her voice-hearing cult there would be no problem.- cofty

As opposed to recruiting ones to Dawkins fundementalism that Religious nuts are taking over the world, Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

I have finished. In conclusion a much better read than ch1 and 2. All these discoveries about evolution that I had no knowledge of are very interesting, but do not negate the need for a Creator, or prove that there had to be one.

As Braincleaned pointed out to me I am bias, as we all are. So I read all three chapters looking for confirmation bias and found it. Likewise Dawkins discoveries confirmed his atheist bias.

bohm, cofty, cantleave and braincleaned when you read Dawkins did it confirm your bias or change your mind? Be honest guys I am interested in the truth.

Thanks for encouraging me to take a closer look at Dawkins, I still think he is arrogant and irrational about religious nuts taking over the world.

Kate xx
38
What IS the meaning and purpose of EVIL?
by Monsieur in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
reading about the massacre of the jw family in mexico brought up all kinds of questions again.. from the standpoint of someone who doesn't in believe in 'god' or a 'conventional' god,.

what is the meaning and purpose of evil?.

how does it relate to the overall universe and its balance?
KateWild

Good one OUTLAW. I agree its always about the money. Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

DOGS AGAIN

When reading this subheading I sighed. The last time I read about dogs in ch2 it was boring. However Dawkins, writes about Coppinger's findings. I found it very interesting indeed.

I liked the point about how "flight distance" would have evolved to make village dogs into domesticated dogs. There is no reason to argue with this point. I had no knowledge about different species evolving. I could not accept a dog and a wolf would mate, much less a chicken and an elephant. But same species mating and changing slowly over time "small adaptations" is very logical.

The fox experiment was an enjoyable read too. Very interesting the point that the colour of the fur changed as the tameness increased. I would be very interested to see the lab results for that. I wonder if the correlation is exponential, but mearsuring the "degree" of tameness probably was difficult to do.

bohm-if you have seen results, would you mind satisfying my curiousity before I research the actual experiment please?

Thanks Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

basic claim of evolution is "small" adaptions-bohm

No it wasn't obvious at all to me, he covered over this point too much with other details. But it makes sense Dawkins is making this point. Thanks Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

Do you think you not liking the guy so much give you a problem abstracting from what he is saying?-Bohm

His writing style is actually improving a little, the fish point was a nice read, and the points on birds and visual and audio senses was more interesting. I promised cantleave and cofty I would read to the end of this chapter, then yes I will likely read a different author. It's more for me getting to know you guys and your interests rather than liking Dawkins.

I have got to know you all better. Thanks for chatting its nice

Kate xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

oops two posts while I was typing thanks bohm and cantleave. Morning to you both xx
19
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter.

i keep getting distracted.

i have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse.
KateWild

I am having another break to talk about rats.

It's interesting that there have been 18 hits (two of which are mine) but no atheists are rising to the bait. So I guess you know I am pulling your leg.

In any case, the points Dawkins makes about rats and tooth decay, are not solid and to the point. I don't really grasp want he is saying about experimenting with natural selection. The church bells and Martian example didn't really prepare me for his point.

Regardless I know what a scientific experiment is, and I know how to extrapolate results. Dawkins did not show the results of the white lab rats and tooth decay, he quite rightly pointed out the variables in wild rats compared with lab rats.

What I conclude, with no experimental evidence atm, I haven't read it all yet, is.......

Rats breed like rats and carry diseases, that bring about epidemics and huge consequences to humans and other animals. The fact that their teeth decay, and their bodies don't breakdown calcium, or they don't intake enough calcium is a good thing from a natural selection perspective. God created rats to have a limited life span.

Butterfly's also have a limited lifespan, for only one season. I think that is sad, they are beautiful and harmless IMO, so I don't know why that is the case from a natural selection perspective or God's for that matter

Back to the book now

Kate xx