Viviane

Joined

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

Posts by Viviane

• 
  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

  Science is usually more precise than that.

  Hard sciences like some of the maths and physics are. Others working on large sets cannot be more precise. For instance, statistics is an incredibly useful tool, but it works within margins of error that would give a physicists or someone working in fluid dynamics a heart attack.

  Not all sciences and not all branches of a specific science are that accurate or precise. Life sciences like biology, botany an archeology have notably large margins of error compared to other things. Just the way it is. As we develop better tools and learn more, that changes.
• 
  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

  Viv, so we can't call out bullying because someone else said something cruel to you? *confusing*

  Of course you can had that happened.. But I haven't bullied anyone, so, no, you can't. And, point of clarity, what was said to me was nasty and dishonest, it wasn't cruel.

  "You stop mocking me first, then I'll reciprocate." So much for the high road.

  That's not what I said, please be honest next time you attempt to quote me. And, BTW, when you're in the mud, you don't get to complain the other person is dirty.

  It produces self-defensiveness and can make the ridiculer look bad to an onlooker.

  Only when done incorrectly or against an undeserving target.
• 
  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

  Can we all stop pretending Richard is just a misunderstood chap with a passion for science now please?

  Sure, right when people stop telling me I am going to hell for not believing in Jesus. Goose, gander, sauce, etc.
• 
  219

  An important difference between atheists and true believers

  by Hortensia in

  1. social
  2. current

  true believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen.

  atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.. http://ow.ly/vn1jz an example of what believers in power do to suppress any difference in thought.

  http://ow.ly/vraeo an example of why believers want to suppress different ideas (because they can't win in a fair fight, that's why).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Am I wrong and/or ridiculous?

  Both!
• 
  219

  An important difference between atheists and true believers

  by Hortensia in

  1. social
  2. current

  true believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen.

  atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.. http://ow.ly/vn1jz an example of what believers in power do to suppress any difference in thought.

  http://ow.ly/vraeo an example of why believers want to suppress different ideas (because they can't win in a fair fight, that's why).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  It's always an interesting mix of wrong and ridiculous when people that don't know me try to tell me what I think.
• 
  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

  You wrote:

  Thanks, Viviane, or should I say ............. well, I never did like sock puppets much. Never mind, keep having your fun by messing with the forum.

  Right after:

  My point? Know your facts, before you make statements in a debate.

  Perhaps you should repeat that back to yourself a few times. You don't know me or anything about me, any statement you make to that effect is born from ignorance.
• 
  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

  Cut the dear girl some slack.

  I'm not giving her a hard time. She made several nasty and untrue accusations about me and now denies it. She's a grown adult and can deal with it. I bear her no ill will at all.

  May I say that I do appreciate your contributions here Viv, on this thread and on the board generally, just don't get in to a spat with Kate, it detracts from the debate.

  I'm not in a spat with anyone. Why would I be? It's just words on a screen....
• 
  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

  Viviane, my dictionary defines fundamentalism as both a type of religious conviction and also in a more general way:

  Exactly! I pointed that out much earlier and posed the very salient question of why are others in the sciences also refered to as fundamentalist? There seems to be a bit of a double standard as I showed and I appreciate you also helping me to show that.

  The other interesting bit, given that definition, is that Dawkins is simultaneously accused of being a bad scientist, meaning he wouldn't be holding to the fundamental princicples of science and therefore NOT a fundamentalist whilst simultaneously being accused of being an excellent scientist, be definition holding to the fundamental princicples of science, sometimes by the same person.

  As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

  I believe the implication is that one who adheres strictly to any principles is overlooking other principles.

  Slow down there, cowboy. You can't use the dictionary for a definition and then decide to modify it to mean something else if you want the dictionary version to carry any weight. You're undermining the very thing you are depending on to carry the weight of your modification. As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
• 
  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

  I disagree, I don't insult people. I am here to help others and learn from others. If you feel insulted by me then I am sorry Viv. Kate xx

  You can add liar to the list now as well.
• 
  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

  Viviane, you might be right that you are not entering into conversations with the conscious intention of winning a debate, but your tendency to be argumentative and deny any possibility of others being right strongly resembles that nonetheless. You've made over 700 posts and haven't started a single thread of any substance. Thus, it gives the appearance that you are interested primarily in waiting for someone to give you an opening and then jumping into a discussion and sniping at them.

  And? If I am insulting someone, you might have a case. If I was being nasty, you might have a case. I am just engaging in science discussion and debate. If people don't like facts and a discussion of the hard sciences, they shouldn't post on threads about those subjects.

  If you or anyone else has an argument or point to make about the topic at hand, make it. Talking about me is resolving the issues under debate.

  You sometimes resort to logical fallacies to do this, such as (willfully? I can't tell) missing the point just to have something to argue over. You turn statements of people's perceptions (e.g., someone feels that someone else's motive is to win a debate) into claims of absolute fact and then point out that they cannot prove they are right since no one can read another person's mind. This 'denial of absolute certainty' approach can be used for anything, but it's a lousy way to hold a conversation. Naturally someone can come to a correct conclusion about someone else's state of mind based on that person's actions. The fact that we cannot know anything for sure is a red herring argument. Please do not deny common sense in order to "win" a debate, it's not effective at anything but irritating other people.

  You are now assigning intent to me, intent that you can't possibly know. Kate has made plenty of claims and been insulting over and over with none of it returned. Please don't pretend to know things you can't know and I won't have to deal with it.