Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  135

  Shark Evolution

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

  i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

  that's not the case, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  It's common knowledge.

  It's untrue in every sense of the word and in direct opposition to your own definition. Continually trying to re-define a word doesn't make it so.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Their motives for being here are to win a debate, not teach something to someone who has genuine questions. It's unfortunate that posters on an xJW site are like this. We all come here to chat and interact and have a laugh.

  There you go again, trying to claim to know what the motives of others are when you are completely ignorant of such. Please stop claiming to know things about other people that you cannot possibly know.

  But the point is interesting when did cats stop being rabbits if the rabbit is the common ancestor? How do we define the new species?

  Cats did not descend from rabbits.
• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Although he is a fundie and uses nonesense comparrisons like Holocaust deniers, his science cannot be faulted. So I wouldn't say I embrace him, but as an evolutionary biologist he has got it right. His teaching methods I disagree with.

  You've misued the word "fundie" again and holocaust deniers are real, despite your previous claim.
• 
  135

  Shark Evolution

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

  i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

  that's not the case, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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).
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  What I want to know is, how can organisms be classified into species if every animal's offspring is its own species? This is a paradox because it means that we are all the same species as the first living cell.

  No, it doesn't. Same doesn't mean exactly equal. There is variation in a population, from ancestor to descendant, from brother to sister, etc. Accumulating those changes over multiple generations means that, while each generation is the same species as the previous, over time generation 1000 can be a different species than generation 0.

  Granted, not being a scientist, I am unlikely to be able to solve this problem, but why can't I make suggestions and get responses?

  You are getting responses!

  Let me try another tack: why is it that I see references to "anatomically modern humans" which first appeared in a certain era? How can scientists suggest that there were humans who were anatomically modern and also say that there was no first human? The only answer I can come up with is that no one has adequately defined "human". A lack of definition does not mean that it is impossible to define; it simply requires drawing a line in the sand and saying things like, "A prefrontal cortex with this percentage of brain mass and a voicebox with this range and [etc.] make a human."

  It's also largely arbitrary, hence the debates!
• 
  135

  Shark Evolution

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

  i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

  that's not the case, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  But in my opinion Dawkins has views that are fundamental to his way of thinking. His way of thinking is in my opinion rigid as regards his view of religious people in general. He can be very careful with words but that is all semantics.

  You just described what's known as "having an informed opinion on a subject" (or not, in some cases). Would you call a mathemetician who uses calcusus to determine rate of change a fundamentalist? Or a chemist that uses moles? I ask because those are also fundamental to mathematics or chemistry, yet you don't say they are a fundamentalist.

  You're making up a new definition of "fundamentalist". You're very careful to relate it to religious fundamentalism, but it's all just semantics. You can't hijack works and make them mean anything you want.

  I think that making up a group of people called holocaust deniers to prove a point and make a comparrison is radical, that is why I used that word.

  He didn't make up holocaust deniers. They are a real thing.

  Having said all this about Dawkins, I don't disagree with his science. So if he was less of a fundie he would probably get a wider audience

  We just established he's not a fundamentalist and not a radical. Problem solved.
• 
  135

  Shark Evolution

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

  i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

  that's not the case, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  135

  Shark Evolution

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

  i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

  that's not the case, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  30

  what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?

  by Hortensia in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know isaac asimov's answer, which makes sense to me.

  anyone else have any answer to the question about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  You get penetration. The irresistible force will penetrate the immovable object. That outcome preserves the character of the two participants. The force remains irresistible and the object remains unmoved

  Unfortunately, no. If the force stops moving, it was, by definition, not irrestistable.