"Accuse"?
Grief! Where did I say you didn't know? Where?
I asked a question, if you knew.
More inaccuracies....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
"Accuse"?
Grief! Where did I say you didn't know? Where?
I asked a question, if you knew.
More inaccuracies....
And FYI, @Subduction Zone , Semitic means "descendant of Shem" and "of or from Shem".
The Egyptians were Hamitic.
The Egyptians were Hamitic.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Right here where you demonstrated that you did not (hopefully you followed the link that I provided) the meaning of "Semitic":
"Egypt was never Semitic! (BTW, what does Semitic mean? Do you know?)"
If the quote falsely represents the author's meaning of a certain fact, then it is wrong to do so...but prove it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Wow... Talk about a lack of introspection...
Projection, as usual.
You cannot UNDERSTAND the evidence, as you have in effect admitted. You ignore evidence. You are one of the biggest insulters on this forum. Like I said, projection.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! Oh my, you did not follow the link And no, the Egyptians are not descended from a mythical person, but that is another topic where you are entirely wrong. You do not seem to understand how language works now. The word "Semitic" is not based upon a myth these days. It means, and I guess I need to quote, which is much easier now that I am not on a tablet:
From the link that I provided earlier:
"Definition of Semitic
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3: JEWISH"
Please note, only the third, and therefore least popular usage, means "Jewish". At one point the word may have had the meaning that you are using. That is no longer the case. And when they say that Egypt is Semitic they are saying that they use either Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, or Amharic. The last time I checked the main language spoken in Egypt was Egyptian Arabic.
Exactly!
It wasn't an accusation, was it?
And I read the Wikipedia article before you ever posted it!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He is pointing out that you are violating the rules of the forum here. One cannot plagiarize. Nor is one to quote huge walls of text. Do you need me to find that rule for you? You could be reported for such action just as one could be reported for personal attacks.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it was an implied accusation. Your English skills cannot be that poor. And you read the Wiki article but did not understand it. At least it seems that way. I would not want to call you a liar. It contradicted your claims.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You are purposefully ignoring what I actually wrote -
So, why do you plagiarize quotes?
And see, I DO mean plagiarize quotes. Because YOU did not read the source, find a quote, and present it with citation. You copy-paste what you find on creationist websites - complete with ellipses and such.
Why do you do that?
You have not read the books or other sources that you post quotes from - you know how we can tell? Because we can use THE GOOGLE and find the sources you have copy-pasted from. Verbatim. Ellipses and all. And you don;t cite which creationist source you copy-pasted from, so.... Plagiarism.
Why do you do that?
And why did you totally ignore my demolition of your Kay and Colbert quote and related topics?
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective
Or here, where I also demolish your claims?
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective
You know, it is easy to see when you flim-flam people...
Skwim
Veteran Member
I got a kick out of the Watchtower's article, which appeals to its member's sense of satisfaction rather than the reasonability of following the evidence.
"Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?"
.
Last edited:
The huge chasm that gives humans the ability to create all civilizations with laws and order, and to compose music and art, and to care for the aged with compassion and sentimentality, etc., etc....
...but primates just scratch their butts.
That gap.
No and no. I was trying to explain the difference between evidence and proof to you. Should not have wasted my time by the looks of your reply.
No. You obviously have no intention of wanting to have a sensible discussion.
[URL='https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010232'][/URL]When design in nature is so good that science wants to copy it....they have to have intelligent men work out the mechanics of the design and then try to mimic it. This branch of science is called "Biomimetics". Here are a few examples.....
"A seagull does not freeze, even while standing on ice. How does this creature conserve its body heat? Part of the secret is in a fascinating design feature found in a number of animals that dwell in cold regions. It is called the countercurrent heat exchanger.
Heat transfers, remains in the body. Cold stays in the feet
What is a countercurrent heat exchanger? To understand it, picture two water pipes strapped closely together. Hot water flows in one pipe, and cold, in the other. If both the hot water and the cold water flow down the pipes in the same direction, about half of the heat from the hot water will transfer to the cold. However, if the hot water and the cold water flow in opposite directions, nearly all the heat will transfer from the hot water to the cold.
When a seagull stands on ice, the heat exchangers in its legs warm the blood as it returns from the bird’s cold feet. The heat exchangers conserve heat in the bird’s body and prevent heat loss from its feet. Arthur P. Fraas, a mechanical and aeronautical engineer, described this design as “one of the world’s most effective regenerative heat exchangers.”13 This design is so ingenious that human engineers have copied it."
"Orb-weaving spiders produce seven types of silk. The sturdiest, known as dragline silk, is lighter than cotton yet, ounce for ounce, is stronger than steel and tougher than Kevlar. If enlarged to the size of a football field, a web of dragline silk 0.4 inch (1 cm) thick with strands 1.6 inches (4 cm) apart could stop a jumbo jet in flight! Spiders produce dragline silk at room temperature, using water as a solvent."
"Using a brain the size of the tip of a ballpoint pen, the monarch butterfly migrates up to 1,800 miles (3,000 km) from Canada to a small patch of forest in Mexico. This butterfly relies on the sun to help it navigate, and it has the ability to compensate for the movement of the sun across the sky."
The gecko can cling to the smoothest of surfaces by using molecular forces.
Scientists created velcro using principles found in nature.
Humans use sonar echo location based on creatures like bats and dolphins...
Excerpts from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010232
[URL='https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010232'][/URL]
You might want to point out to your watchtower scientists that the bird they show is not a Seagull, it's a Silver Gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae). It makes them look a tad silly.
No. They are examples of evolution. Why wouldn't humans try and copy something successful when possible?
So, you think these Precambrian organisms are "obvious" precursors?
I guess they gotta be, to support your pov. Lol.
No wonder Gould and Eldridge came up with punctuated equilibrium, since gradualism failed to explain what was observed.
Silver gull - Wikipedia
That article says it is "the most common gull seen in Australia".
"Gull" is a link....tap on it, then read it.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It's been proven that you have quoted mined. And you know it.
Ok, let's look at some evidence...when Dr. M. Schweitzer discovered the soft tissue in a T-Rex, what is the implication?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sounds like you need to read the Gould quote that you butchered, in its entirety. Plus all the other links I (and others) have provided for you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Primates do much more than that.
Not to mention the fact that humans are primates.
And....?
No one can ever quote from anyone, now?
Prove where I misapplied what the authors were saying about the particular topic discussed.