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.
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.".
Jacobm, that's not natural selection.
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
Ruby, learn what words mean. Commenting on a public forum is not intervevening. You just say that because you have no evidence on your side.
I quit commenting on your threads because I've lost interest in wallowing in bullshit. I literally quit caring enough because you don't care to better yourself. If you can't be bothered, why should I?
looking at the board, i see so many long threads on " evoultion vs creation " ect, ect.. therefore if " your" qualifications are only those of " an" uneducated j.w, may i ask one question?.
q) what makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?.
i ask the above question because for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words written in the pages of an awake" magazine.
Anyway with the greatest respect Vivianne I believe many " people" come here looking for answers, yet with your sharp and logical mind, I believe many "people" leave here not understanding your fascinating and compassionate heart.
what does an answer have to do with my heart? If you ask what 2+2 is, the answer has nothing to do with whether or not some is a murderer or a social worker.
Well I gave it my most positive shot, because I am sure no past or present poster has thought you evil, but surviving with you is a challenge :-)
I've no idea what you mean. I am sure some people do think I am evil. So what? What do I care if someone values feeling good over reality?
What makes a poster feel qualified to comment with absolute authority on any subject?
What makes you think anyone even slightly educated in logic would fall for this strawman?
Or, to put it another way, what makes a poster feel qualified to comment on other posters with absolute authority, such as this OP?
looking at the board, i see so many long threads on " evoultion vs creation " ect, ect.. therefore if " your" qualifications are only those of " an" uneducated j.w, may i ask one question?.
q) what makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?.
i ask the above question because for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words written in the pages of an awake" magazine.
What makes you feel you are now qualified to comment with absolute ,authority on any discussion?
Welp, this is just a strawman.....Also, when you have an A), there should be a B), otherwise the A) is pointless.
for most of us " ex-witnesses " logic is still words on a page in an " awake" magazine, so whilst FACTS, and images are great,the vehicle that will remove cognitively baffled minds will eventually be threads from the heart not logic.
That was true for most of us as well, but we put the work in to learn. Why is it that so many who don't or won't put the work in want to be convinced using emotions? And this is science. Literally the point of it is to remove emotion and bias.
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.
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.
It's just very possible and highly likely as far as probabilities go that we are in a simulation.
Why?
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.
They are smart. Why don't you quote, in context, what they said for us on this subject? Go on.
BTW, who is Neil Degrasse?
Oh, the virtual universe you claim they simulated..... How many particles was that?
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.
Exactly. "Just as valid" means, in this case, "exactly as pointless and useless".
Also, that's not a picture of the universe.
