Further proof that those who take the Bible literally are idiots. Surely if it was literally true then THIS version should be adhered to as it was written closer to the time of Christ than the modern version?
It's not staged, you muppet. Here's the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5711019/Missing-cat-appears-on-BBC1s-Question-Time.html
Also, Turds, get stuffed, you homophobic waste of skin.
Also, from Wikipedia: "It is commonly claimed by creationists that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[5] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favourite lie" of creationists.[3]
A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features.[7] Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[8] Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
Although transitional fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition of one species to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. Creationists have often claimed that this analysis of the fossil record is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.[5] Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as being bush-like in appearance, not as the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion."
Ah. That ruins it a little but this is still damn cool.
Here's the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5711019/Missing-cat-appears-on-BBC1s-Question-Time.html
Also, Turds, get stuffed, you homophobic waste of skin.
"It is commonly claimed by creationists that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[5] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favourite lie" of creationists.[3]
A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features.[7] Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[8] Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
Although transitional fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition of one species to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. Creationists have often claimed that this analysis of the fossil record is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.[5] Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as being bush-like in appearance, not as the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion."