by shadow 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The part is that the paper said which solution felt most likely. In other words, it fundamentally disagrees with shadow, and shadow doesn't even realize it.
Seriously, do you creationist ever read to the end or is cherry picking and not know what you're talking about all you have?
Even if every scientist on earth was scratching their bald heads and muttering that they don't have a clue why humans lost their body hair it would not impact the fact of evolution one iota.
I know, I am having a hard time following the logic. I am thinking because logic has been omitted from this one.
What if hairless humans can't be explained.
Does this mean....Jesus is real?? Buddha or Allah maybe?
Seems like a god of the gaps argument. Creationist who promote their God using this fallacy still have done nothing and offered no evidence for their beliefs. All of their work is still ahead of them.
cofty: Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.
shadow: The arch example does not prove that God did not do it.
Shadow, there is a big difference between saying "this shows God is unnecessary as an explanation" vs saying "this proves God could not be the explanation."
We have millions/billions of confirmed (repeatable) examples of natural explanations for phenomena, and precisely zero supernatural explanations for any phenomena. This alone is enough to say that a plausible naturalistic explanation for any one phenomenon is sufficient to render a supernatural explanation extraneous and unnecessary. (That's a long-winded way of saying "Ockham's Razor FTW!")
As Viviane said, the article you posted lists problems with a number of ideas about the evolutionary reason for our loss of fur, but even if those problems are insurmountable by proponents of those various ideas, it still leaves the 12th idea, from the article you quote approvingly, as a valid explanation. So, rather than undermining evolution, you've only undermined the thermoregulatory theory of fur-loss and helped establish the some-other-theory theory of fur-loss.
What you need to do is show that there is no possible evolutionary explanation for humans losing their fur--that the only possible explanation is a supernatural one. If you can't do that, then you've only changed the status of the question from "Probably because X" to "unknown (for now)."
Edit: In other words, what 2+2=5 said.
