Spider AL Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Stinger, yourself and Ray have one quality in common... you like to present your dubious opinions as if they are fact. I do not believe in the jehovaspankage of Judeo-christian theism, I do not believe that creationism can compete as a scientific theory with evolution... But nor do I believe that we are evolved enough to decide whether there's a "point" to life or not. The question of whether there's a meaning to life is a deep and unfathomable one, and while we must try to plumb its depths, we must not start declaring the matter closed as Ray is doing. Our brains are too small and simian to warrant such arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL 1)All successful species have the ability to adapt, that's why they're successful. Didn't stop them from going extinct, largely. 2)And yes, let's look at the dinosaurs. They were magnificently well engineered for the Earth's environment, just as we are. THEY STILL DIED OUT. Just as we may do. 3)Oh? Exactly how will enough of us survive to repopulate the species in the event of a catastrophic meteor strike. We couldn't possibly build a bunker deep enough. Let alone the fact that we are not yet self-sufficient enough to survive indefinitely outside the planet's ecosystem. Forget all that nonsense America peddles about terraforming Mars, we're years and years away from even the first steps. 1-Wrong. The most succesful specie, ever, has not gone extinct yet and probably never will. It's the most adaptive of them all, more then humans , more then otehr creatures. Long live roaches. 2-You didn't get the point. They were adapted for a single environment and could not adapt to any climatic changes. Which is why they got wiped out by whatever happened. Most widely accepted theory explained below. 3- Hollywood got to your brain. Unless the meteor is horribly large and we screwed our protective layers in the earth's atmosphere to such a point that we're already dead anyway, a meteor isn't exactly a nuke. Well, it's close but still very different. The current theory about the dissapearance of the dinosaurs is a meteor hitting the earth, creating a gigantic cloud of dust that changed the climate radically in a short amount of time. Dinosaurs, too adapted to their environment, could not change. Mammals however, were able to adapt to the climatic changes and survive. This is why homo neerdantalis(I really should check the spelling of this word) went extinct. Homo sapien could adapt to the changes. When something in their environment changed, homo neerdantalis could not change his way of life in order to adapt to the new situation resulting in their extinction. [sarcasm] I think the only way to counter any risk of overpopulation is mass genocide of all non-western countries or poor underdevelopped countries.[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL The question of whether there's a meaning to life is a deep and unfathomable one, and while we must try to plumb its depths, we must not start declaring the matter closed as Ray is doing. Our brains are too small and simian to warrant such arrogance. [/b] not even on mars does it matter if we are here. we're nothing special, not more worth than any other lifeform, that's all i'm saying. who cares if our species dies? the only "sad" thing would be when life "dies". btw, you think to boxish, al. and i don't present my opinions as fact. and i don't claim to be right. i just state them "loud and *cough* clearly". and dubious is what you do if you call my opinion dubious. objectivity is not your style, i suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 lukeiamyourdad: Wrong.Negative, RIGHT. You didn't read properly. I said "largely" extinct. 2-You didn't get the point. They were adapted for a single environment and could not adapt to any climatic changes.Oh, I got the point just fine. What you don't seem to get is that climactic changes of sufficient severity would wipe us out, as well. Unless the meteor is horribly largeOnce again, I must presume you didn't read the line in which I said "catastrophic" meteor strike... we have smaller rocks falling on our shell all the time, naturally. And finally, your low opinion of the dinosaurs' adaptability is unfounded. You don't get to be dominant and/or at the top of the food chain, without being incredibly adaptable. Of course they had their weak spot, but the fact that we ALL have weak spots, isn't up for debate. RayJones: i don't present my opinions as fact.Oh really? What about this: not even on mars does it matter if we are here. we're nothing special, not more worth than any other lifeform, that's all i'm saying.Sounds like it's being presented as fact to me... after all you're not even trying to provide us with your reasoning, you're just reeling off your opinion as if it's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 i just "reel off" my opinion. my thoughts. maybe because i'd like to hear what others think about this. not to "convince" others it's the truth or fact. conversation, exchange, babey. and instead of your useless blah-blah you could have presented what you think about this "theory" of mine. in other words: you are way too destructive for a constructive exchange of thoughts. oh, you don't get it, ranarana. oh, well it is so, because i say it! what do you say? i don't get the point? NEVER. uiuiui. don't behave like a [attention skinwalker] ad hominem remark. tsk. oh, and reasoning? i don't think i said things that need much reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Why did the Dinosaurs Disappear? This question has been hotly debated in recent years, and, despite very confident claims, particularly on behalf of the meteorite-catastrophe theory, is still not decisively resolved. There are in fact many theories which have attempted to explain a phenomenon which, both because of its spectacular appearance and because of its implications for the emergence of our own species, has captured the popular imagination in a unique way. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remind ourselves that this was not a unique event in the chain of evolution. It was not the only mass extinction, or the biggest, or necessarily the one with the most far-reaching evolutionary consequences. The theory which currently enjoys most support and which certainly has been given the most sensational publicity is based on the assertion that the impact of a huge meteorite falling somewhere on the earth’s surface caused an effect rather similar to the "nuclear winter" which would follow a major nuclear war. If the impact were sufficiently large, it would throw great quantities of dust and debris into the atmosphere. The dense clouds thus formed would prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the earth’s surface, resulting in a prolonged period of darkness and falling temperatures. There is empirical evidence to suggest that some kind of explosion took place, which may have been caused by a meteorite. The theory has gained ground in recent years with the discovery of a thin layer of clay amongst fossil remains, which would be consistent with the effect of dust produced by such a large impact. The idea has, for example, seemingly been accepted by Stephen J. Gould. Nevertheless, there are questions which have still to be answered. First of all, the dinosaurs did not disappear overnight, or even in a few years. In fact, the extinction occurred over several million years—a very short time in geological terms, but sufficiently long to cast some doubt on the idea of a meteoric catastrophe. While the meteorite hypothesis cannot be ruled out, it has one major disadvantage. As we have pointed out, there have been many mass extinctions along the evolutionary road. How is this to be explained? Do we really have to resort to an external phenomenon such as a sudden meteor impact to do so? Or does the rise and fall of species have something to do with tendencies that are inherent within the process of evolution itself? Even at the present time, we can observe the phenomenon of the rise and fall of animal populations. Only recently have we come close to understanding the laws which govern this complex process. By looking for explanations that lie outside the given phenomenon, we run the risk of abandoning the search for a real understanding. Moreover, a solution which seems attractive because it removes all difficulties at a stroke can create even greater difficulties than the ones it was alleged to have solved. Several other suggestions have been put forward. The period under consideration was characterised by widespread volcanic activity. This, and not a meteorite impact, could well have caused a change in the climate which the dinosaurs were unable to cope with. It has also been suggested that the disappearance of the dinosaurs was connected with competition from the mammals. There is a parallel here with the disappearance of most of the original marsupial population of South America under pressure from the mammals from the North. Indeed, it is possible that the extinction of these creatures was the result of a combination of these circumstances—volcanic activity, destruction of the existing environment, excessive specialisation, and competition for reduced food resources by a species better-equipped to cope with the changed conditions. It is unlikely that this particular controversy will be resolved in the near future. What is not in dispute is that, at the end of the Mesozoic some fundamental change ended the domination of the dinosaurs. The main thing is that it is not necessary to introduce external factor to explain this phenomenon: "‘You don’t have to look for sunspots, climatic upheavals or any other weird explanation to account for the disappearance of the dinosaurs,’ said Lovejoy. ‘They did fine as long as they had the world to themselves, as long as there was no better reproductive strategy around. They lasted more than a hundred million years; humans should as well. But once a breakthrough adaption was made, once dinosaurs were confronted by animals that could reproduce successfully three or four times as fast as they could, they were through.’" (28) http://www.marxist.com/science/revolutionarybirthofman.html#Why%20did%20the%20Dinosaurs%20Disappear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL Stinger, yourself and Ray have one quality in common... you like to present your dubious opinions as if they are fact. umm, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of debating?? presenting your views that contradict someone elses??? besides, my point was that if life has no meaning,as ray has stated, then why bother going through the struggles of daily life??? ray didn't offer any explanation for that, and my biblically based views give an explanation. i never said that you have to believe the way i do, but it will take a lot for me to quit believing the way i do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by stingerhs umm, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of debating?? presenting your views that contradict someone elses??? it's also showing facts that support your claims. Originally posted by stingerhs besides, my point was that if life has no meaning,as ray has stated, then why bother going through the struggles of daily life??? ray didn't offer any explanation for that, and my biblically based views give an explanation. uhmm... because being mean is bad, and causing others to hurt isn't good. :x not that hard, doesn't really need an explanation. It's common sense. Originally posted by stingerhs i never said that you have to believe the way i do, but it will take a lot for me to quit believing the way i do. noones telling you to stop believing what you believe. We're just saying you can't use unfounded beliefs as facts. Same goes for ray and anyone else. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith uhmm... because being mean is bad, and causing others to hurt isn't good. :x not that hard, doesn't really need an explanation. It's common sense. says who??? if your life is just as meaningless as anyone elses, then why is your definition of morality valid??? same goes with everyone else on this planet, assuming that life has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 well, i have no certain explanaintion. and i can't. i just think it's the best fitting way to see the world i live in. i just can't "imagine" it makes a "huge" difference in 485 million lightyears distance if we are or life in general is here or not. why should it? and due to observations humans made, stars "die", and in conclusion our sun will "die". so in further conclusion, earth will disappear, too. and the only "human task" i can think of is to "save" out species (and therewith life, besides the possibility there is life somewhere else) from disappearing. so in my opinion the "real and only meaning" of our lifes is maximum that of every other lifeform existing: to survive as species. we live for nothing else. as a result of that, we developed several ways to managed our everyday life in our environment. including "mental strategies" to make us feel "comfortable" during "bad times" or to organise the social together like a goal or meaning for all that. but i think i stated some of that already. and i am well aware of the fact that there are other people thinking otherwise. and i totally accept that. welcome to the world of opinions. ^^ [edit] Originally posted by InsaneSith We're just saying you can't use unfounded beliefs as facts. Same goes for ray and anyone else. An opinion is just that, an opinion. yes, and cannot see that i have said "it is fact" nor that i suggested it. i was in fact really only stating my views to recieve a "feedback" how "common" my views would be. maybe someone offers some good point to make me rethink my views. i don't deny possibility that anything of what i thought could be a good theory might be wrong nor that ANYONE of us is wrong and everything runs complete different. .. so.. err.. not that you think i "want to state facts" .. how wrong am i with my views? ; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by stingerhs says who??? if your life is just as meaningless as anyone elses, then why is your definition of morality valid??? same goes with everyone else on this planet, assuming that life has no meaning. even if life has no meaning, you should be nice to others, why? because of consequences. You're mean to someone, they'll react, sometimes you'll even end up dead. Common sense. Not a definition of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones yes, and cannot see that i have said "it is fact" nor that i suggested it. i was in fact really only stating my views to recieve a "feedback" how "common" my views would be. maybe someone offers some good point to make me rethink my views. i don't deny possibility that anything of what i thought could be a good theory might be wrong nor that ANYONE of us is wrong and everything runs complete different. .. so.. err.. not that you think i "want to state facts" .. how wrong am i with my views? ; sorry, I was just using you as an example that I'm not singling him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 yeah, i thought that when you said "everyone else" .. and on the other hand you are right. it goes for me and everyone else.. and it might be that i tried to extend that to "enlight" al about my "real intentions". ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by stingerhs i really hate having to mention this, but your all assuming the theory of evolution as fact. creation is just as much a viable theory. sorry, but it had to be said. Saying it doesn't make it true. "Creation" isn't a theory. Period. Evolutionary theory is fact. There is a preponderance of evidence that life on the planet is the result of millions of years of adaptation and mutation and absolutely zeror evidence of creation by any deity or pantheon of deities. Sorry to post off the topic, but if you've ever read my posts in other threads, you know I'm a bit passionate about people popping out with creation mythology being more valid than the solid science that evolutionary theory is based upon. To discuss further, visit one of these threads: Georgia wants to remove "evolution" from the curricula Evolution thread (not a Creation/God thread) Is "Creation Science" really science? Creation -vs- Evolution Adaptation vs. Evolution Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories Originally posted by stingerhs and so you know, there is no way that i'll start believing in evolution until i see some concrete evidence that it occured. so far, that hasn't happened. You won't see or understand the evidence unless you allow yourself to get an education that includes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 All the more reason to develop the space program... And while we're at it, let's build some floating/underwater cities. Otherwise, who's going to decide who lives and who... Ach! Vat did you say Mr. President?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 One would think that limiting our population size through sterilisation and/or abstinence is a more current solution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 ..and others might argue that way for oral sex practices and "gay people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I still like my free condom and encouraged use of them idea. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 ..and others might argue that way for oral sex practices and "gay people"What? I do wish you'd quote what you're replying to, if you're going to continue to be unfathomably obtuse in your responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 and maybe you should be smart enough to recognize that there is no need to quote if i reply to the previous post. especially if it's one spectacular deep oneliner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 "Spectacular" isn't a word I'd use. And once again you're missing the point: If you're going to post unfathomable gibberish, at least provide a quote as an indication of the context that your posts are otherwise lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Just stop it, Al. You're repeating yourself. And you start to sound boring. And again you didn't listen to what i said: " in reply to the previous post." And as you may have noticed, you ended your post with three dots and i started mine with (only) two, but the intention is obvious. To continue, or better said, to carry on what you have said. Maybe, before playing the wiseass, it is a good idea to know these forum's guidelines. An excerpt from the "Senate Chambers Rules & Guidelines": Quoted Material: This is another departure from the LF General Rules-Set that I'd like to point out. In the Senate Chambers its considered bad form to quote more than you post. Especially if you are quoting a post on the same page and particularly if it is just above your own. Quoting an entire post of several paragraphs, then making a quick line or three in response is the worst. And before we're going through the whole stuff again and again.. *sigh* and again. Originally posted by Spider AL One would think that limiting our population size through sterilisation and/or abstinence is a more current solution... Oh, that is a funny thing you mention here, directly in that post that will appear before mine, but i will quote it for you or you might miss it, SpiderAL. I could imagine that other people might argue the same way pro oral sex practices and "gay people". It decreases the increasing rate of earth's population. It's at least what "institutions of faith" tend to state. And now, Mister Al, if you have any further problems with my posts or furthermore continue to refuse to think at least a bit for yourself, or in other words, are unable to recognize the obvious, feel free to ignore me, my posts or even to put me on the "ignore list" in your user settings. If not, then please, if you don't understand something, and before getting unconstructive, simply ask for more details, otherwise your behaviour is more than lacking. Thank you, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.