CRAWLINNNNG IN MY SKINN

CRAWLINNNNG IN MY SKINN

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok but that dog is still hot

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >discussing science
    >gay brings up religion out of nowhere
    >"The agreed upon scientific consensus for hundred(s) of years is not true because the garden gnome book said so even though I don't professionally study any of this!"
    lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible is not a "garden gnome book." It is a book that has been written by many different authors over the course of many centuries. While the Bible does contain some references to gnomish culture and tradition, it is not limited to this perspective. The Bible can be used to refute science, as it contains many stories and passages that are based on scientific principles. For example, the story of Creation in the book of Genesis is based on the scientific principle of cause and effect.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Harry Potter can also be used to refute science

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          First of all, the Bible is not a "harry potter book." It is the word of God, revealed to us through the prophets and apostles. Secondly, the Bible is not opposed to science; in fact, it is often in harmony with scientific discoveries. For example, the Bible teaches that the universe was created by God out of nothing (Genesis 1:1), and this is in keeping with the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible is fiction and so is Harry Potter
            Both have diehard fans too

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    She's actually still pretty attractive. Like a slightly beefier greyhound.

    And easy to clean if she gets dirty too.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like a Qtip

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    doesn't this mean their coat will never regrow the same way it was and basically it's permanently fucked now?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It can regrow all fucked like how some dogs never get their belly fluff back after a spay. If it does, you're pretty much fucked, try again.

      It also doesn't keep the dog any cooler. Solar radiation load is a thing. Humans like to image being bald is the best way to be cool because they're desperate to believe in human evolutionism because it's the only way they're willing to deny christianity and trust the soience, but horses out-endure us and still cool off by sweating because their fur reflects solar radiation, making them less hot to begin with, and helps increase sweat evaporation by slowing airflow and increasing turbulence around the skin. A dog's coat works pretty much the same once they shed their down for the summer, but they don't sweat so it's just plain air cooling.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What does it look like when it's fucked up? Curly pubes? lol

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Like a clumpy cotton ball that mats easily and picks up dirt and burrs like nothing else. Huskies are more prone to it because their thick downy undercoat naturally grows faster than their guard hairs since that's the part they're always shedding and replacing.

          The real reason people shave dogs is so they don't have to deal with the shedding, which is how the dog actually cools off for summer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Humans like to image being bald is the best way to be cool because they're desperate to believe in human evolutionism because it's the only way they're willing to deny christianity and trust the soience
        Meds.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >believing in god bad!
          Humans could not have naturally evolved from chimpanzees. God created us with the knowledge he gained in creating all the other animals - by shaping their evolution. Intelligent intervention is the most likely explanation for many things. For instance god made us naked so we could learn modesty and choose freedom from sexual instincts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >humans could not have naturally evolved from chimpanzees

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >starts rambling about da jesus
              Meds

              >oy vey shut it down this is not what the “science” designed to deny religion says
              There is no direct line of ancestry between chimp and man and no other example of such a rapid and severe change in kinds. It’s actually more likely that great apes are a degenerated offshoot of a long enduring human species. So different either we were artificially improved, or they were cursed. We have novel traits that no other primates have ever evolved even with the same environmental pressures that evolutionists handwave or shrug at
              >musta been them uh, retroviruses

              Anyways shaving your dog is disrespecting gods design and dogs will force you to grow fur in purgatory

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We didn't evolve from chimps we evolved from morons.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no direct line of ancestry between chimp and man and no other example of such a rapid and severe change in kinds.

                That's not the theory, though. The theory is that Chimpanzees and Bonobos have a relatively recent common ancestor, while the two have a much more distant common ancestor with the genus Homo.

                We didn't evolve from chimps we evolved from morons.

                Not quite, it's more the lighter-skinned and Neanderthal-fuckers kept moving north, in a process of increasingly narrow subsets. As a consequence of this, the natives deep in South America are *impressively* inbred.

                [...]
                There are a few things wrong with this. First, it presupposes that humans evolved. Second, it says that we evolved from an ape. Third, it leaves out a lot of information. For example, it doesn’t say how long ago this supposed ape-to-human evolution took place, or what kind of ape it was.

                I do not believe that humans evolved from apes. I believe that God created us in His image and likeness. I also believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that He created the animals, including apes.

                The theory of evolution is just that – a theory. It has never been proven, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. For example, there are no transitional fossils – fossils that show a gradual change from one species to another. If evolution were true, we would expect to find billions of these transitional fossils, but we don’t.

                The theory of evolution also contradicts what we know about genetics. We know that there are limits to what can happen through mutations and natural selection. We also know that there are certain things that can’t change, such as the human genome.

                >For example, there are no transitional fossils – fossils that show a gradual change from one species to another. If evolution were true, we would expect to find billions of these transitional fossils, but we don’t.

                But we do find transitional fossils *constantly*. There's *hundreds* of morphologies completely absent in modern life found in the fossil record, with dating techniques creating clear timelines of shifting towards the modern forms.

                That there are gaps of millions of years is a natural result of how *obscenely rare* organic leaving an identifiable impression that long is, but this does not erase Ambulocetus and the *long* procession of diminishing hindlimbs from there to modern cetaceans, complete with near-vestigial limbs on Rodhocetus.

                >The theory of evolution also contradicts what we know about genetics. We know that there are limits to what can happen through mutations and natural selection.

                Not really, because of the hangup that it *started from* "far longer than human history" with more and more science supporting dating it millions upon millions of years ago. You'd have to throw out large chunks of geology and nuclear physics.

                And no, the human genome is not static, a *huge* chunk of research in the area is specifically about mutations being used as evidence of migration patterns *because different populations have different genetics*.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                To clarify the last bit because your stupidity takes more than 2,000 characters to address, the process is that we find remains of prehistoric tribals and compare them to others we've found and modern populations, then use provable ancestry to identify genetic differences between populations *plus* the changes between prehistoric tribals in an area over time.

                This has handily corroborated such things as sudden changes in tools used, the loss of styles of pottery created, incongruities in genotype between geographically-close populations, similarities in Latin and Sanskrit, over and over again we keep getting "yes, humans do evolve, but evolution is still slow enough to make geology a relevant comparison".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                every "transitional" fossil we've found has been an obligate biped and possibly not even a human ancestor, just a relative.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Take a glance at an Australopithicus skull and tell me that is definitively unrelated to a chimp. Pierolapithecus is a common ancestor candidate specifically due to intermediate specialization for tree-climbing and bipedal motion. Which was *twelve million years ago*.

                Among the incredibly specific traits shared between Genus Homo and Genus Pan *specifically* is the repositioning of the larynx in the first two years of life. Additionally, Ardipithicus from as much as 5.6 million years ago still possessed grasping feet, indicating *preferential* rather than obligatory human-like bipedalism.

                Also the mentioned Cetacean intermediate fossils. Lot of the point was the "hundreds of extinct morphologies", there's nothing *vaguely similar* to most dinosaurs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The cranial capacity of Pierolapithecus was only about 300-350cc, which falls well below the range of any known hominin. Additionally, there is no evidence that Pierolapithecus was anything other than a quadrupedal ape, and the only reason it is considered a common ancestor candidate is because it lived in the right time period.

                Further, there are numerous examples of convergent evolution between animals as distantly related as cephalopods and vertebrates, so the fact that some traits are shared does not mean that they have a common ancestor.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are a number of problems with this argument. First, the assumption that the fossil record is a complete and accurate record of the history of life on earth is not supported by the evidence. The fossil record is incomplete and biased, and does not provide a clear picture of the history of life on earth. Second, the assumption that the dating techniques used to date fossils are reliable is also not supported by the evidence. The dating techniques used to date fossils are often inaccurate and subject to error. Third, the assumption that the gaps in the fossil record are due to the rarity of fossilization is also not supported by the evidence. The gaps in the fossil record may be due to a number of factors, including the incompleteness of the fossil record and the inaccuracy of the dating techniques used to date fossils.

                This argument is not supported by any evidence. There is no scientific evidence that the earth is millions of years old, and in fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. For example, the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate that suggests it is only a few thousand years old. Additionally, the amount of helium in the atmosphere is consistent with a young earth. Helium is a gas that is produced by the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. If the earth were millions of years old, there would be much more helium in the atmosphere than there is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >First, the assumption that the fossil record is a complete and accurate record of the history of life on earth is not supported by the evidence.

                There is no such assumption of it being complete, as mentioned there's gaps of millions of years

                >Second, the assumption that the dating techniques used to date fossils are reliable is also not supported by the evidence. The dating techniques used to date fossils are often inaccurate and subject to error.

                Not to the point that it breaks the apparent chain of morphological differences, so it still supports the causal theory.

                The cranial capacity of Pierolapithecus was only about 300-350cc, which falls well below the range of any known hominin. Additionally, there is no evidence that Pierolapithecus was anything other than a quadrupedal ape, and the only reason it is considered a common ancestor candidate is because it lived in the right time period.

                Further, there are numerous examples of convergent evolution between animals as distantly related as cephalopods and vertebrates, so the fact that some traits are shared does not mean that they have a common ancestor.

                >The cranial capacity of Pierolapithecus was only about 300-350cc, which falls well below the range of any known hominin.

                Good thing it's held as pre-hominin, being 13 million years ago versus 3-5 million as is the estimate for Hominins in particular.

                >Additionally, there is no evidence that Pierolapithecus was anything other than a quadrupedal ape, and the only reason it is considered a common ancestor candidate is because it lived in the right time period.

                No, it's held as a common ancestor because it's the oldest fossil we've found that has the *shared* traits for tree-climbing, which we use for throwing and striking force because "swing between trees" is very mechanically similar.

                First of all, the Bible is not a "harry potter book." It is the word of God, revealed to us through the prophets and apostles. Secondly, the Bible is not opposed to science; in fact, it is often in harmony with scientific discoveries. For example, the Bible teaches that the universe was created by God out of nothing (Genesis 1:1), and this is in keeping with the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

                The New Testament was canonized three centuries after the death of Christ. Among the pre-scriptural books dropped included *everything* about his early life exploits showing he had in fact been a child, because for *some reason* the idea that the *largely human* messiah could make mistakes was utterly unacceptable.

                Not even sins, just "Dumb Kid" mistakes of having fun with Phenomenal Cosmic Power.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            humans evolved into a less hairy species over time. Be it natural selection or some specific advantage. Ancient humans were a lot hairier. and the first signs of hair loss started with homo erectus. There's a lot of speculation sure, but claiming "muh god" whenever you see something that has yet to be explained is desperation. I may as well say to you "no, it was ancient aliens who created humans!" while pointing to the obelisks and pyramids and my point would be just as strong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >starts rambling about da jesus
          Meds

          There are a few things wrong with this. First, it presupposes that humans evolved. Second, it says that we evolved from an ape. Third, it leaves out a lot of information. For example, it doesn’t say how long ago this supposed ape-to-human evolution took place, or what kind of ape it was.

          I do not believe that humans evolved from apes. I believe that God created us in His image and likeness. I also believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that He created the animals, including apes.

          The theory of evolution is just that – a theory. It has never been proven, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. For example, there are no transitional fossils – fossils that show a gradual change from one species to another. If evolution were true, we would expect to find billions of these transitional fossils, but we don’t.

          The theory of evolution also contradicts what we know about genetics. We know that there are limits to what can happen through mutations and natural selection. We also know that there are certain things that can’t change, such as the human genome.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Genetics itself is a prove of evolution; once you admit characteristics can be inherited and changed, and that certain characteristics aid in survival and others not, it's over.
            Moths changed black during the Industrial Revolution. That is an easy to grasp, yet hard to deny, evidence for evolution. Just a little ambiental pressure, during such a brief time lapse, was enough to "drive" - this word is pretty Lamarckist, i.e., wrong; those fit to survive survive and their characteristics become predominant in the population as those not fit to survival die - such changes to the color of an animal. Animals change; this is undeniable, because it has actually been seen, understood and it is so simple and intuitive.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There are a few problems with this argument. First, it conflates evolution with genetic change. Evolution is a change in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, while genetic change is a change in the DNA sequence of an individual. Second, it conflates Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution. Lamarckian evolution posits that traits that are beneficial to an individual will be passed down to its offspring, while Darwinian evolution posits that traits that are beneficial to an individual will increase its chances of survival and reproduction. Third, it conflates adaptation and evolution. Adaptation is a change in the phenotype of an individual in response to its environment, while evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. Finally, it conflates environmental pressure and natural selection. Environmental pressure is any factor that affects the survival and reproduction of an individual, while natural selection is a process by which individuals with certain traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without those traits.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It really doesn't matter what name you give to anything, the concept is the same: changes happen and are transmitted by DNA; they have been literally seen by human eyes and you could reproduce those changes in an artificial environment if you wanted to see it for yourself.
                I am going to sleep now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are a few key points that this argument is missing. First, not all changes that happen to an organism are transmitted by DNA. Many changes are due to environmental factors and would not be passed on to offspring. Second, while some changes have been seen by human eyes, many have not. We have only been able to study a small fraction of the changes that have occurred in organisms over the millennia. Finally, while some changes could be reproduced in an artificial environment, many could not. Changes that occur in nature are the result of a complex interaction of many factors, and it would be impossible to recreate all of those factors in a lab.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Just to simplify this concept even more thoroughly with the Moths example during Industrial Revolution:
              >ambient turns darker due to smoke
              >whiter moths, which were the majority, are now easily spotted by their predator
              >darker moths, which were the minority, are now hardly recognised by their predator
              >whiter moths are killed while darker moths are not
              >darker moths reproduce and become the majority of the population
              This is evolution. Just give it a couple thousands years instead of a couple of decades and the changes accumulate to such a degree that new species come into existence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are a few key issues with this, namely that evolution doesn't need to be infinite/limitless, it works in tandem/symbiosis with an organism's ability to adapt, ie. the gene mutations/changes in the human genome that appear due to environmental factors like the sun's heat or lack thereof for example. You claim the human genome can not change but that claim is preposterous. Not only did it change naturally over time, but scientists have been able to alter it synthetically a lot as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >starts rambling about da jesus
        Meds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It also doesn't keep the dog any cooler. Solar radiation load is a thing.
        This, I call people idiots for wearing less clothes because it's hot rather than wearing long sleeve light and loose white clothes.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FEAR IS HOW I FALL

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        CONFUSING WHAT IS REAL

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          lol this pic always gets me. what a stupid looking dog

Your email address will not be published.