| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
curiousaboutkorea
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| pangaea wrote: |
| The earth has been here for something like 4.5 billion years (unless you are a fundamentalist) |
Even then, it's still been here for 4.5 billion years  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I never stated that I disagreed with you, but I don't agree per se. I would never go around telling people to throw stuff on the floor because recycling is a myth, or whatever. That would be like telling a kid to keep smashing his kitchen window because it will keep being replaced. Still makes them a bad person.
I'm aware, as evidence has shown, that the tiniest, most insignificant changes can have a massive effect on the surrounding wildlife, and this will lead some people to think 'oh, well f*** it then, no point bothering. But it will lead others to think 'cripes, I better be careful'.
It's personality defining, to this extent. I'd much rather hang out with the latter, as funny as I often do find the people of the former option very funny. The ones I have in mind, anyway.
Edit - And yeah, mass extinctions have shown great evidence that they are required in order to advance life. Every time a mass extinction has occurred, the results are a burst of further developed species, from those that survived. Even if we do kill ourselves, the tube worms and so forth down on the ocean floors won't even be aware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
My point wasn't that we shouldn't try to do all we can to be environmentally friendly. My point was that we have to to save ourselves. I think the problem is that too many people think their actions alone aren't going to matter that much. Obviously, if everyone did their own little part, it would add up to a very big difference.
I do wonder which species could evolve and essentially take over as the most intelligent or at least self-aware species on the planet if humans became extinct. Dolphins maybe? I think they are even more intelligent than we give them credit for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| And yeah, mass extinctions have shown great evidence that they are required in order to advance life. Every time a mass extinction has occurred, the results are a burst of further developed species, from those that survived. Even if we do kill ourselves, the tube worms and so forth down on the ocean floors won't even be aware. |
*Choke*
Thats a great attitude you evolutionists have. "It doesn't matter if we kill everything because new stuff will appear out of nothing!". With such conclusions based on agenda-driven supposition and guesswork.
So..first darwinism justifies naxiism and genocide of inferior races, now it justifies wiping out all other species. I suggest you relinquish your death-cult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
*Choke*
Thats a great attitude you evolutionists have. "It doesn't matter if we kill everything because new stuff will appear out of nothing!". With such conclusions based on agenda-driven supposition and guesswork.
So..first darwinism justifies naxiism and genocide of inferior races, now it justifies wiping out all other species. I suggest you relinquish your death-cult. |
What? Are you a troll? No one came to any of those conclusions. If you are serious, then you clearly don't understand evolutionary theory or how natural selection operates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
curiousaboutkorea wrote:
| Quote: |
| Even then, it's still been here for 4.5 billion years |
Whatever. All those geologists, anthropologists, physicists, and other ists who say the earth is that old are using flawed testing methods or are just plain wrong. One day, someone will find the complete remains of an anatomically modern human riding a triceratops into Noah's Ark and then who will have the last laugh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
| And yeah, mass extinctions have shown great evidence that they are required in order to advance life. Every time a mass extinction has occurred, the results are a burst of further developed species, from those that survived. Even if we do kill ourselves, the tube worms and so forth down on the ocean floors won't even be aware. |
*Choke*
Thats a great attitude you evolutionists have. "It doesn't matter if we kill everything because new stuff will appear out of nothing!". With such conclusions based on agenda-driven supposition and guesswork.
So..first darwinism justifies naxiism and genocide of inferior races, now it justifies wiping out all other species. I suggest you relinquish your death-cult. |
Er... yeah I never said 'it doesn't matter'. I stated what evidence has given us. I don't see any personal opinions or the like in my last post... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
What? Are you a troll? No one came to any of those conclusions. If you are serious, then you clearly don't understand evolutionary theory or how natural selection operates. |
Evolutionism doesn't appear to produce conservationists, ie people who want to preserve and protect biodiversity.
Instead they view extinctions as nothing to get upset about, a case of winners and losers. Maybe we will finish off they last tigers and elephants in the next decade, they will simply be called "losers".
Looking at Globutron's scenario of a nuclear nightmare with the only winners being tubeworms on the ocean floor,..evolutionists throw their hands up and say Oh well...I'm sure a whole new millions of wonderful species will evolve from those tubeworms so it doesn't matter". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| pangaea wrote: |
What? Are you a troll? No one came to any of those conclusions. If you are serious, then you clearly don't understand evolutionary theory or how natural selection operates. |
Evolutionism doesn't appear to produce conservationists, ie people who want to preserve and protect biodiversity.
Instead they view extinctions as nothing to get upset about, a case of winners and losers. Maybe we will finish off they last tigers and elephants in the next decade, they will simply be called "losers".
Looking at Globutron's scenario of a nuclear nightmare with the only winners being tubeworms on the ocean floor,..evolutionists throw their hands up and say Oh well...I'm sure a whole new millions of wonderful species will evolve from those tubeworms so it doesn't matter". |
How is that remotely true? I'm an evolutionist, and that is almost entirely opposite of what I think. As can be said for... Every single evolutionist I've ever heard of. David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins to name two famous names. Attenborough of which has spent the last 50 years of his life urging people to look after what we have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double post
Last edited by Globutron on Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Senior on Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| pangaea wrote: |
What? Are you a troll? No one came to any of those conclusions. If you are serious, then you clearly don't understand evolutionary theory or how natural selection operates. |
Evolutionism doesn't appear to produce conservationists, ie people who want to preserve and protect biodiversity.
Instead they view extinctions as nothing to get upset about, a case of winners and losers. Maybe we will finish off they last tigers and elephants in the next decade, they will simply be called "losers".
Looking at Globutron's scenario of a nuclear nightmare with the only winners being tubeworms on the ocean floor,..evolutionists throw their hands up and say Oh well...I'm sure a whole new millions of wonderful species will evolve from those tubeworms so it doesn't matter". |
Elephants aren't endangered.
Do you really think a "nuclear nightmare" would destroy everything except tube worms? Look at the site of Chernobyl. It is teeming with diverse wild life.
Besides, it's not as if the world would be completely carpeted with nuclear war heads. Why would you bomb the desert and Antarctica and so on.
Furthermore, no one on this board subscribes to the theory that you just posited. I'm sure we would all be saddened to learn that all tigers and Elephants (including those in captivity) had become extinct. We just don't put the lives of animals above the lives of humans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
How is that remotely true? I'm an evolutionist, and that is almost entirely opposite of what I think. As can be said for... Every single evolutionist I've ever heard of. David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins to name two famous names. Attenborough of which has spent the last 50 years of his life urging people to look after what we have. |
On what basis? You've just told us that mass extinctions are a good thing, that pave the way for new life to evolve.
Surely then conservation is holding back the process? By your ethos, tigers don't deserve to survive in the modern world as they have not evolved to outrun bullets, they are simply losers in the game.
What about disabled people? Where do they stand in your survival of the fittest dog-eat-dog reality? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
How is that remotely true? I'm an evolutionist, and that is almost entirely opposite of what I think. As can be said for... Every single evolutionist I've ever heard of. David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins to name two famous names. Attenborough of which has spent the last 50 years of his life urging people to look after what we have. |
On what basis? You've just told us that mass extinctions are a good thing, that pave the way for new life to evolve.
Surely then conservation is holding back the process? By your ethos, tigers don't deserve to survive in the modern world as they have not evolved to outrun bullets, they are simply losers in the game.
What about disabled people? Where do they stand in your survival of the fittest dog-eat-dog reality? |
Stop making a fool of yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Stop making a fool of yourself. |
I think you've outlived your usefulness. You really should be turned into fertiliser to make way for new life to form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
