How on earth does it follow that if something is based on the Bible it can't be hateful or unlawful?
It doesn't. Obviously. Nobody said it does.
Posts by cofty
-
42Jehovah's Witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'Harness Your Habits' leaflet in North Devon
by OrphanCrow injehovah's witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'harness your habits' leaflet in north devon.
devon and cornwall police have said a leaflet posted through doors in north devon isn't a crime – despite it advising gay people to "control their urges".the leaflet, entitled "how to harness your habits", was distributed in north devon by jehovah's witnesses and contains an article asking "what does the bible say about homosexuality?
"in it, the religious group states that "rejecting homosexuality" is completely different to "rejecting people of a different skin colour" and says their views are the same as people who "view smoking as harmful and even repugnant".it also compares gay people to animals, but says "unlike animals, they can choose not to act on their impulses".the journal was contacted by a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who felt "belittled" by the leaflet.
-
-
cofty
-
42
Jehovah's Witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'Harness Your Habits' leaflet in North Devon
by OrphanCrow injehovah's witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'harness your habits' leaflet in north devon.
devon and cornwall police have said a leaflet posted through doors in north devon isn't a crime – despite it advising gay people to "control their urges".the leaflet, entitled "how to harness your habits", was distributed in north devon by jehovah's witnesses and contains an article asking "what does the bible say about homosexuality?
"in it, the religious group states that "rejecting homosexuality" is completely different to "rejecting people of a different skin colour" and says their views are the same as people who "view smoking as harmful and even repugnant".it also compares gay people to animals, but says "unlike animals, they can choose not to act on their impulses".the journal was contacted by a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who felt "belittled" by the leaflet.
-
-
cofty
1 - The bible condemns homosexual sex
2 - The WT view the bible as the source of their ethics.
Having read the leaflet it can't reasonably be characterised as hateful. It's hardly a surprise that the police declined to take any action.
-
90
Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life
by shadow indisclaimer: 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.
-
-
cofty
The Lost City vent is 60m high and at least 120,000 years old...
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
let's say that we believe the arch got there all by itself - Shadow
That would make us superstitious fools - Cofty
yes it would - Shadow
Now you are bailing out the conversation rather than deal with the facts.
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
It is difficult to imagine a more trivial objection to evolution.
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. This whole conversation is just bizarre!
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
No it doesn't. The paper addresses those objections in detail.
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
let's say that we believe the arch got there all by itself
That would make us superstitious fools.
Any naturalistic answer that works excludes supernatural answers. You have posted at least 12 naturalistic answers to your objection. Thermal regulation fits the data very well.
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
The facts are that a paper pointed to by cofty to answer this topic is full of holes as pointed out by other evolutionists
There are no holes in the paper. Not one. It was peer-reviewed and published by the National Academy of Sciences.
There are alternative interpretations of the same data. All of them exclude superstitions. Every one of them is predicated on the fact - that is certain beyond all reasonable doubt - that we descended from hairy ancestors who walked on all fours.
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
Using terms like "stupid" in your posts doesn't make what you want to say - scratchme
Who are you referring to?
-
32
Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux
by shadow ini 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.
-
-
cofty
Here is the point you need to address...
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. If there are 12 possible solutions that all work then there are 12 reasons why supernatural answers can safely be ignored.
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!