Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Futility . . . the fate of all Trolls
I agree with all of that.
I’m simply suggesting that the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud represent a better explanation (a better model) of the firmament, than a medieval depiction of soaring domes and towering pillars.
I guess I agree here too, since the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud actually exist while the dome and pillars don't.
I'm not sure where I got the impression you were disagreeing with me.
Keep in mind that to the medieval mind (among those who even had interest in thinking about such things), the dome and pillars would have seemed far more the likely possibility than an invisible belt restraining a vast number of comets and a cloud of frozen water, dust, rock, and metal.
“I'm not sure where I got the impression you were disagreeing with me.”
Because we’ve bumped heads before, and I think it likely we will again.
More nothing....moving on...
Sorry, but I’ve been away. Apparently, though, you have not used the extra time wisely. Instead, you have displayed the same inability to post anything but the FR equivalent of a Bronx cheer.
I remain amused by your lack of creativity. I remain correct in my conclusion that you have no real defensible position.
Please, more!
“I did not state that natural selection claims to be able to explain the origin of life. I merely stated the fact that it cannot explain it. “
The theory of internal combustion can’t explain the origin of life, either. Nor can the Bohr model of the atom. Nor can the recipes contained in microwave cookbooks. Yet you were motivated to choose natural selection for the post that you now admit was meaningless.
I could have told you that. In fact, I think I did.
Troll is as Troll does.
Make that “no explaining”
Please, more!
Troll droppings.
Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life. Fact or no? If fact, then what's your problem? Do you have a problem when people state facts? Are all facts meaningless to you, or just this one? Maybe its only relevant to you when you state a fact.
You claim that because I stated a fact, that I am "intellectually dishonest"; whatever that means. Also, in no way did I admit that what I said was meaningless (who knows where you ever came up with that thoughtless assertion). You're reading a whole lot of things into what I say that are simply not there.
It looks like someone is confusing speciation with abiogenesis. Yawn.
Natural selection also cannot explain gravity, the speed of light, or the existence (or non-existence) of dark matter.
And it doesn’t attempt to.
I don't think a lion or ape that engaged in self-sacrifice would last long so how did the concepts of morality and compassion originate in man?
That seems to me to be a major black hole in the theory of evolution.
Weakness?
People that co-operate and live in peace tend to have more children live.
Try reading what I said again and concentrate. I’m talking about the origins of the concepts of compassion and charity in any evolving species. Not a modern man.
Are viruses alive? Are prions alive? They don't know.
Mr. Juby claims that viruses are not alive because they can't reproduce on their own.
But there are a lot of parasitic species that can't reproduce without their hosts, including fungi and insects (human children could be considered parasites but that's a different example).
I agree. And thanks for pointing that out.
“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life.”
It doesn’t try to! Why is this so difficult for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.