the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
So now the te debate has ended and it's turned into people not liking the way their questions were answered and Space Madness calling names.
If you don't like the way your questions are answered, put in the work to come up with a better answer. It's not complicated.
cosmos: a spacetime odyssey : with neil degrasse tyson.
remake of carl sagan's cosmos a personnal voyage of 1980. presented by fox sun 9/8c and national geographic mon 10/9c.
http://www.cosmosontv.com/.
The show is designed to get people excited about science. I think it did just that.
the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
Hey you supposedly "smart" atheists, riddle me this:
- If life evolved from the organic compounds, why are there still organic compounds?
- If atheists evolved from religious people, why are there still religious people?
- If the Bible isn't true, how come it says it is?
- If evolution is true, why haven't we evolved wings to avoid airports yet?
Yeah... thought so. Boom goes the the dynamite.
the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
I'd tell you what kind of fallacy that is, but I don't want you to flip out on me. I know how you feel about fallacy-naming as a form of argument, so I'll let you work it out for yourself
You have no idea how I feel about anything. Just after you said you don't judge me, you decide you know how I feel? Tsk tsk.
You know, I hate to draw attention to this as if I'm patting myself on the back, but I feel a need to point out what EOM wrote earlier:
Good thing, too, since he didn't say which direction it moved. Making assumptions, again? I thought you didn't do that.
It wouldn't be so hard to at least link to the older posts you've made in response to these questions, if they've been asked before, would it?
That has been done many times. Not on this thread, but if you feel it is important, you are free to do some research and post those links. Already many links to outside articles have been posted.
Au contraire!
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. If you feel there is a different petty word game going on, of course you can think that and proveit, but it in no way doesn't mean that exactly what I said isn't going on.
the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
There's also a strange denial taking place here of the validity of using forums to ask specific questions.
Again, if you bothered to learn history, you would see that there are a wide variety of posters that have labored long and hard to answer questions.
What you are seeing is the refusal to engage in petty word games.
the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
Personally I don't judge people by their past history. I stay in the present, because people are a process, not a product. Perhaps he just wasn't satisfied by the past explanations he got. I was willing to spend some time writing up (what I hoped were) answers to his questions because, even if EOM is not receptive to the answers (and I actually think he is), there are always plenty of lurkers reading these topics, and I am confident that "read a book" does not sound very convincing to a JW that may be reading this thread.
Ah, so if someone stole from you 10 times, you would trust them? If someone beat their wife every time they got drunk you would be comfortable offering them a drink because this time it might be different?
Please, you do exactly what you are claiming you don't do all the time.
Sorry, but that's arrogance, plain and simple. I want to win over people to the things I've learned and am enthusiastic about, not bask in a sense of superiority.
Sorry, but that's wrong, plain and simple. If you had bothered to read the posting history, you would see that the very people you are attempting and failing to chide HAVE attempted to help EOM with his questions many many many times. When it becomes obvious he is up to his old tricks of attempting "gotcha" questions, the attempt to help him learn ends because it's plain (s)he is not interested in learning.
I suggest, before you start calling people names, you do the smart thing and learn some context and history because that does matter.
the part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
EOM is not a potential student, not at this point in time. As I pointed out to you before, if you look at his posting history, he does this all the time, throws up smoke, refuses to do any research on his own and these things have been explained time and time again with references to more information provided.
If he (or she) refuses to learn after asking and being provided everything they need to move forward, they are lazy or intentionally remaining ignorant and spreading that ignorance to support an agenda.
Since you didn't bother to do the basic research yourself to see if this was the case (after you had already been told it was), you can go somewhere else with your ill-conceived comparisons to the WT.
cosmos: a spacetime odyssey : with neil degrasse tyson.
remake of carl sagan's cosmos a personnal voyage of 1980. presented by fox sun 9/8c and national geographic mon 10/9c.
http://www.cosmosontv.com/.
Apologies, DS. I misread your statement to mean you were saying in the world of science it's equivalent to being an apostaste to questioning things. I re-read that and realize my mistake. Again, apologies.
cosmos: a spacetime odyssey : with neil degrasse tyson.
remake of carl sagan's cosmos a personnal voyage of 1980. presented by fox sun 9/8c and national geographic mon 10/9c.
http://www.cosmosontv.com/.
Designer Stubble, you are ill informed if you think questioning things in the world of science leads to an inquisition. If you watched the show, you should that one of the main points was that in science, you have to question everything. He literally said "question everything".
cosmos: a spacetime odyssey : with neil degrasse tyson.
remake of carl sagan's cosmos a personnal voyage of 1980. presented by fox sun 9/8c and national geographic mon 10/9c.
http://www.cosmosontv.com/.
What did you consider hype, prologos?
