<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Creationist Fossil Attack!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anadder.com/creationist-fossil-attack/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anadder.com/creationist-fossil-attack</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 05:25:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not AÂ Religion? &#124; Young Australian Skeptics</title>
		<link>http://anadder.com/creationist-fossil-attack/comment-page-1#comment-24259</link>
		<dc:creator>Not AÂ Religion? &#124; Young Australian Skeptics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anadder.com/?p=2194#comment-24259</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But the most annoying thing to me is the legalistic nature of the argument. The argument implies that there is some inherent, â€œtrueâ€?, formal definition of religion and thatâ€™s all that matters. To the person making the argument, the definition can not change because of history or consensus; and is certainly not dependent on social context. This is similar to creationists believing that species must be fixed by definition, thereby ruling out any transitional fossils in principle. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

