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?.
Viviane, what term would you use to describe someone who's atheistic/anti religious views you believed were extreme?
I think those are two separate questions. If someone is an atheist already, I don't see how that person could be an extreme atheist, plumbing new depths of unbelief.
If someone is anti-religion to the degree you would consider extreme, then extreme is a good word.
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.
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.
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
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.
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?.
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.
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.
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).
this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....
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!
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.
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.
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?.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
