i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
I can't tell you why you would resort to personal attacks
I never do.
maybe you don't consider them personal attacks and others do
Believers and creationists consider attacks on their superstitions as personal attacks. That's their problem.
You just called me and many people lazy
It was a statement of fact. The intellectual laziness of many believers I have encountered on this forum is really astonishing.
see how we're off topic?
Yes, you did that because you don't have any facts.
i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
rules of common courtesy are tossed out and attacks fly back and forth so much that any possibility of civil discussion is eliminated - Shadow
Go back and read my 38 threads on the Evolution is a Fact series. Observe the frequent personal attacks and insults I receive from a collection of Jesus' buddies, and then notice that I never retaliate.
Like many people you see vitriol on a thread and lazily assume both sides are as bad as each other.
Why would I resort to personal attacks when I have facts on my side?
i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
Yawn
i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
there are a lot more examples in support of creation but no doubt you will say none of them have any merit
Bring them on and we will see. In years of studying the subject and thoroughly examining all sorts of objections to evolution I have yet to find one that wasn't facile.
So it's two fails out of two.
Maybe you could stick to facts and cut out the ad hominem?
i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
picking out one paper and saying that it had the facts to answer the question posted. A question so simple that a schoolchild could answer it.
The paper I posted does answer the question. A schoolchild should be able to answer it.
In order to rule out creationism it is not necessary to show the definitive answer to a specific challenge. Let's say you come across a stone arch for the first time in your life. You have no idea how it could be built because it would obviously fall down at every stage until the keystone is in place. Therefore you conclude that god made it. In order to prove that you are wrong I only have to demonstrate one possible naturalistic answer. I might show how it could be built using a wooden scaffold that was then dismantled. It doesn't matter at all if somebody else insists that it was built using a mound of sand and somebody else is certain it was built using a pile of earth.
Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.
The same goes for your rather odd objection that the loss of hair contradicts evolution. You have listed 12 reasons - any one of which proves you are resorting to superstitions. Well done!
Science has transformed the world for the better. It really works. It makes predictions and tests them. It does everything possible to disprove its own assumptions and throws out what doesn't work. It is based on methodological naturalism.
In other words every mystery ever solved turned out not to be magic.
i am posting a second topic on this subject since the first one became overrun by snakes.. cofty posted a link to a published paper discussing this topic and referred to the information in it as "facts".
here is my summary of that paper along with comments on it.. one of the opening statements says that:.
two frequently debated aspects of hominin evolution are the development of upright bipedal stance and reduction in body hair.. so for those who believe this is a stupid topic, it is a subject of interest to many stupid people including the authors of the paper referred to by cofty.
There is disagreement between scientists on the advantage of loss of body hair - so what?
Our ancestors were hairy - we are not. The reason why is still open to debate. Thermal regulation is a strong candidate.
In my mind it calls into question all of the topics posted on the subject of evolution
That is so intellectually dishonest it is ridiculous.
There are millions of details about the minutiae of evolution that have still to be worked out. You highlighted a very trivial one. I could have suggested far more significant examples.
Imagine a Juror who listens to days of evidence regarding the guilt of a murderer. There is DNA evidence, physical evidence, phone records, forensics, fingerprints etc etc. However witnesses disagree whether or not the man they saw running from the scene was wearing a baseball cap.
If one of the jurors wanted to throw out all of the evidence based on that detail and then you discovered the juror had failed to declare he was a friend of the accused, what would you think of him?
The evidence that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution is beyond sensible debate. The ONLY reason anybody doubts it is wilful ignorance or religious bias.
Shadow - What books that present the scientific evidence for evolution have you studied?
I'm guessing the honest answer is none and that you will ignore the question as every creationist I have asked so far has done.
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
That's just your mind Ruby Ruby Ruby Ruby....
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
to save us all a lot of time and effort..... [some complex structure in living organisms described].
[i can't imagine how this could be the product of evolution].
[therefore god created it].
I won't be listening ... because I have a strong emotional connection to my beliefs.
If only more believers were as honest.
this site is great, i have been lurking for a while now.
but i can’t get reinstated and have used some of the advice already given.. i was df’d many months ago and go to all the meetings and do all the preparation for the meetings, but the jc committee keep refusing me.
tomorrow at the clam meeting i am puting yet another letter in and will be called for another dreadful jc meeting.. 1. what can i say to the elders to show that i am truly repentant?.
cofty, what do you recommend for Betty to do? - BRJ
Every exJW should focus of education, career, hobbies, family, friends, fun etc. Leave the big questions aside for long time until you are ready to come back to them much later.
Church is the last thing any exJW needs.
Christ loves...........why do you hate him? - BRJ
I don't hate imaginary things. I oppose people who try to foist their superstitions on other vulnerable people.
the love of Christians is the answer - BRJ
Outside the cult there are many great people who won't judge you for not believing ridiculous things like they do.
You could show a little tiny bit of respect for other people's beliefs occasionally - rebel
I respect others too much to go along with their delusions.
especially when they show up on the forum hurting
Don't worry, I know BettyBoo very well. Church is the last thing she wants.
