On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:00:06 -0400, TimK wrote:
> "*_//!!_//!!*" <*TheAngel*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:482f64c4$1_4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "TimK" <timkozz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:482e5f30$0$31719$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "*_//!!_//!!*" <*TheAngel*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:4829fd53$1_4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "MC PRTK" <prtk.uncensored@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:fvqhfq$67j$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Nsidnay43YwbkJfVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <48099223$1_1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>>>> "*_//!!_//!!*" <*TheAngel*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity is only a theory, and is now known to be a false one, but
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> closer to being true than any religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, both evolution and gravity are both theories AND facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, you are wrong. Gravity *is* a Proven Fact, ~Evolution~ is
>>>>>> not!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Amen*
>>>>>
>>>>> Buddy, evolution was _PROVED_ 150 years ago.... Its guys like you
>>>>> who will
>>>>> go any length to sup****t crappy stuff that have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
>>>>
>>>> ~UNPROVEN~ 150 years ago and to this
>>>> day................"Buddy"...................!
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I would rather be a monkey's cousin than be related to
>>>>> DIRT!
>>>>
>>>> F.Y.I, you are a "monkey's cousin related to DIRT", ~According to
>>>> Evolution~, !
>>>>
>>>> *Amen*
>>>
>>> That's not what evolution says, ignorant ****.
>>
>> That *IS* EXACTLY what 'The Theory of Evolution' says, you "ignorant
>> *****!
>
> Don't tell me what it says; I'm a biologist - I'll tell you what it says
> and you'll nod your head yes and keep your piehole shut about it. Moron
One could actually argue he's _sorta_ right, on three different tacks.
On the one, there's the issue of abiogenesis. If one is sloppy enough in
terminology to regard the constituency of primeval environs in which life
presumably arose as "dirt", then we must, perforce, have arisen from
"dirt" and thus, in some weird way, be related to it.
Or, if one examines the notion of "dirt" - which might be taken to mean
"soil" - today, one might note that it usually contains, among other
things, a fair bit of organic matter, meaning it is - however indirectly
- related to us.
More poetically, one might note that effectively all matter beyond the
simplest - hydrogen and helium, possibly one or three others - was
created in and/or by stars - meaning that anything composed of such
materials, be it human or humus, is in fact related - we are _all_
"starstuff".
What puzzles me is not the possibility we are - as he phrases it -
"related to dirt" - but why he would regard this as a bad thing. In two
cases it amounts to nothing more than "ho hum", while in the third, it
would, if anything, inspire a certain sense of belonging - all things, be
they rocks or planets, people or interstellar dust, no matter where they
are, across all the endless parsecs of space, ultimately share a common
heritage - we *are* the universe made manifest.
Which is to say, even bending over backwards to give him the rope to hang
himself with, the only real result is "Well yes, we are - and isn't that
about the most magnificent thing you can imagine?"
|
