playing devil's advocate here.... what's the difference between the gb changing bible interpretations compared to parliaments all over the world changing laws?
although the us constitution (=bible) remains untouched, congress passes i don't know how many new laws every year.
and of course people are expected to follow them.
What's the difference between the GB changing bible interpretations compared to parliaments all over the world changing laws?
Great question! All you have to do to know that is look at the difference between a parliament and the GB to get that answer.
GB - not elected, no accountability, claim to be speaking directly for God, claim to have the only truth
Parliament - elected, accountable, speaking on behalf of those that elected them, open to points of view, compassion, and compromise
if one reads about god creating the earth with any critical thinking you'll notice that he created vegetation and the trees before the sun.
another one that i just read about was the stories about the golden calves.
one story involves the making of a golden calf by aaron and the other is about the golden calves that were set up at bethel and i think dan.
Not sure on your translation but if read the Hebrew, seed was created.
well, kinda at least the jw carts aren't making a noise .
outside powell st station, opposite the westfield centre in market street, san francisco.
street view: https://goo.gl/maps/usgcsjsntwz.
I saw some in the ticket counter area in O'Hare a few weeks ago, just standing there, chatting and playing with their phones while thousands of people in a hurry with somewhere to be completely ignored them. Seriously, could they have picked a place less likely to get someone to talk to them?
Or, was that the whole point?
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.
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?
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.
Do you have a point? Other than being afraid of snakes, of course.
when i first met my wife and on that so important first date i was 21 years old and sadly broke, she was an 18 year old au pair.
any way i treated her to mcdonald's but she had to pay for the meal.
now over 20 years later and still together, i realize how lucky i was she didn't say on that first date " if you can't afford to pay "our" mcdonald's meal f...off" .
On my first dates, I generally offer a small sportscar
I read that as "sport scar" and wondered exactly what you are into. NTTAWWT.
if you were a computer programmer and you were to create a simulated automated world, that would constantly evolve and self run after initial designs.
first you would have to code the rules, laws, and core elements of this world.
while this is being coded, the program is not run yet, so none of it exists.
While that is not true as far as I can see, we could well have a computer program running in our brains that is like RAM in a computer and that this is our soul. Atheist hate this idea because computer souls would need programmer to set the code. And if this is true then we are forming new souls as we compute, and perhaps one day our computers will say hello to us, and ask where did I come from. Somebody tell Tyson that he is proving God, in his own image.
First of all, brains don't work like RAM. There could be a god. There could be a million gods. Why do you think that idea bothers me? If you show me evidence for it, we should investigate it. Same thing with a simulation. It could be true, but there is nothing to suggest it's true at all.
What is a soul anyway? Computing? That's just a metaphor. Unless you can tell me what a "soul" is, then you're not saying anything meaningful about them.
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
what I am trying to say viv is that natural selection is starting to look a liittle strained and that there are other processes at work too. (leave the rest as it seems to be confusing you)
I am only confused by jumbled word salads that don't say anything. In what sense is it strained? What do you think natural selection is? What other processes?
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
this is where natural selection starts to become a little strained and starts to resemble a deus di machina. there are other processes at work too you know - those snakes trying to copulate look suspiciously like genetic draft
edit: apologies that should read deus eks machina but my point re genetic piggy backing stands
What in the actual F are you trying to say? Genetic piggy backing drift, deus ex machina?
evolution paints human ancestors covered with fur.
fur has several benefits as stated by britannica "the pelts of fur-bearing animals are called true furs when they consist of two elements: a dense undercoat, called ground hair, and longer hairs, extending beyond that layer, called guard hair.
the principal function of ground hair is to maintain the animal’s body temperature; that of guard hair is to protect the underlying fur and skin and to shed rain or snow.".
So, natural selection is actually not working for the snakes?
No, of course it works. That's like saying because the moon hasn't crashed into the earth, gravity isn't working.
Your understanding of what natural selection does is wrong is what you are being told. And what it actually is.
