didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
Called it: | Quote (didymos @ Mar. 19 2010,16:48) | | Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2010,11:33) | | Quote | | Sculptors don’t “fashion” anything; they only throw out marble chips. How can this not be obvious? |
The analogy is better if you think of topiary rather than marble. |
Better still, since sculpting and topiary both involve actual design, which I expect the UD crew to pounce on:
Erosion doesn't "fashion" anything; it only throws out stuff. How can this not be obvious?
 |
Clivebaby is one predictable tard: | Quote |
pelagius,
| Quote | I’m demonstrating the absurdity of GilDodgen’s statement:
| Quote | | Natural selection does not “fashion” anything; it only throws stuff out. How can this not be obvious? |
…by applying his logic to marble sculpture and showing that it leads to the absurd claim that the sculptor isn’t “fashioning” anything:
Sculptors don’t “fashion” anything; they only throw out marble chips. How can this not be obvious? |
Surely you’re joking. A sculptor has in mind a fashion, and that is what he is doing, adding a face by subtracting the chips (addition by subtraction in essence); if he arbitrarily cut away pieces with nothing in mind, we wouldn’t call him a sculptor.
|
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
