No, "sculpted from mud" = "sculpted from mud".
Evolution doesn't mention a sculptor, in fact it postulates the lack of one. "Non-random selection of randomly developed features". Creationism, however, requires a sculptor, and makes no attempt of explaining how the sculptor became a complex enough being to be able to create so many diverse and complex life forms as there are today.
I'm sorry, are you saying that it's rationally plausible that a living body consisting of several complex organs could be whipped up from a patch of wet clay by supernatural forces of which there has never been any evidence, that this has only happened once in spite of all the mud we have just laying around, and that this is somehow comparable to coal being pressed into a diamond over millions of years?
Evolution IS adaptation. And nobody who actually understands evolution has ever said that people come from apes, or birds from lizards. What we have is common ancestors.
I'd advise you to not debate subjects about which you obviously know less than nothing, at least until you do some proper reading.
Let's also filter the mail, cellphone conversations and text messages, walkie-talkie and other short-range radio transmission devices and fax. We should also outlaw the lending and borrowing of pendrives, memory cards and home-recorded CDs and DVDs.Those child pornographers are sneaky bastards.
Yes. You can, too. Get a microscope, a bacterial culture and a toxin. Apply moderate levels of the toxin to slowly kill off the bacteria that can't resist it. Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant. That's evolution.
Can't evolution hold up against creationism? If so, let creationism be heard. If not, get rid of evolution.
It can, and it does. More to the point, there is not one measly scrap of evidence for any form of creationism. Not the biblic creationism, not the Hindu creationism, not the Eskimo creationism and not any other. All the different religious creation stories combined have exactly as much evidence for them as the theory I just made up about our Universe being embedded in a hexa-dimensional privy in some supernatural public restroom.
Creationism means that people descend from a dude missing a rib who was sculpted from mud. It's not only incompatible with evolution, it's incompatible with rational thought.
I feel the need to point out the exception of "fair use". That is predicted in the law and the RIAA, MPAA et. al. choose to ignore it anyway. when they do that, they're acting illegally, committing blackmail and just being general assholes.
Of course they're assholes either way, but in the other cases they do it legally.
The thing is, they don't have to prove they did nothing wrong. They just have to prove that the accusation's "proof" that they did something wrong is bull.
The wonders of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty, much to the dismay of patent and copyright trolls everywhere.
we'll be using a different format. Yes, it will be encumbered by patents, DRM and a bunch of other shit we don't even know yet - but it will not be H.264. I don't really see how this extension of free licensing could be profitable to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Douglas Adams. Notorious atheist.
No, "sculpted from mud" = "sculpted from mud". Evolution doesn't mention a sculptor, in fact it postulates the lack of one. "Non-random selection of randomly developed features". Creationism, however, requires a sculptor, and makes no attempt of explaining how the sculptor became a complex enough being to be able to create so many diverse and complex life forms as there are today.
I'm sorry, are you saying that it's rationally plausible that a living body consisting of several complex organs could be whipped up from a patch of wet clay by supernatural forces of which there has never been any evidence, that this has only happened once in spite of all the mud we have just laying around, and that this is somehow comparable to coal being pressed into a diamond over millions of years?
Evolution IS adaptation. And nobody who actually understands evolution has ever said that people come from apes, or birds from lizards. What we have is common ancestors. I'd advise you to not debate subjects about which you obviously know less than nothing, at least until you do some proper reading.
Two kinds of evolution? Source. otherwise you're spreading FUD.
Let's also filter the mail, cellphone conversations and text messages, walkie-talkie and other short-range radio transmission devices and fax. We should also outlaw the lending and borrowing of pendrives, memory cards and home-recorded CDs and DVDs.Those child pornographers are sneaky bastards.
Has anyone here witnessed evolution?
Yes. You can, too. Get a microscope, a bacterial culture and a toxin. Apply moderate levels of the toxin to slowly kill off the bacteria that can't resist it. Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant. That's evolution.
Can't evolution hold up against creationism? If so, let creationism be heard. If not, get rid of evolution.
It can, and it does. More to the point, there is not one measly scrap of evidence for any form of creationism. Not the biblic creationism, not the Hindu creationism, not the Eskimo creationism and not any other. All the different religious creation stories combined have exactly as much evidence for them as the theory I just made up about our Universe being embedded in a hexa-dimensional privy in some supernatural public restroom.
Creationism means that people descend from a dude missing a rib who was sculpted from mud. It's not only incompatible with evolution, it's incompatible with rational thought.
If I lived in the USA I'd sue you for suing annex1.
It's the original reference for the "That's 1 harder!" pun. Anything else is irrelevant bickering.
I feel the need to point out the exception of "fair use". That is predicted in the law and the RIAA, MPAA et. al. choose to ignore it anyway. when they do that, they're acting illegally, committing blackmail and just being general assholes. Of course they're assholes either way, but in the other cases they do it legally.
The thing is, they don't have to prove they did nothing wrong. They just have to prove that the accusation's "proof" that they did something wrong is bull. The wonders of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty, much to the dismay of patent and copyright trolls everywhere.
we'll be using a different format. Yes, it will be encumbered by patents, DRM and a bunch of other shit we don't even know yet - but it will not be H.264. I don't really see how this extension of free licensing could be profitable to them.