The Anthropocene

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I didn't imply it. Maybe you need to recalibrate your gaydar.

You sure did. And you have done it many times before, when you are in a similar spot (all weak talking points obliterated, nothing really to say).

And you will do it again.

 

[ding]

You sure did. And you have done it many times before, when you are in a similar spot (all weak talking points obliterated, nothing really to say).

And you will do it again.

I didn't and the fact that you can't explain it and are now on your third post about and are no closer to explaining it suggests you are off your meds again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't and the fact that you can't explain it and are now on your third post about and are no closer to explaining it suggests you are off your meds again.

The fact that you can't argue your position after several posts shows I am right.

I live playing by the ding rules!

 

[ding]

The fact that you can't argue your position after several posts shows I am right.

I live playing by the ding rules!

You are playing the nahuh game. Go suck a dick.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are playing the nahuh game. Go suck a dick.

Yes, just like you. But the difference is that's who you are, and I am being facetious to mock you.

So.. when someone expresses ethical concern about a mass extinction... explain to us how they are arguing against Darwinism.


Or just sit there and have a fit.

 

[Crick]

You are playing the nahuh game. Go suck a dick.

ITWJWD?

 

[Crick]

Because it ain't settle science you dumb shit. It is a scam complete with false data, cherry picked data, revealed lies, computer modeling that doesn't work, unscientific methodology, worthless peer reviews among the scammers, predictions that don't come true and admittance of dishonesty by the Principle Scientists.

Since it is your religion you are blind to the scam. You would make a great Scientologists. Where the people heading the scam know it but the stupid followers are in denial about the scam.

There are tens of thousands of climate related studies published in peer reviewed papers. Are you claiming they are all part of a scam?

 

[ding]

Yes, just like you. But the difference is that's who you are, and I am being facetious to mock you.

So.. when someone expresses ethical concern about a mass extinction... explain to us how they are arguing against Darwinism.


Or just sit there and have a fit.

I haven't brought up ethics, moron. Crick is the one making a moral argument.

 

[ding]

ITWJWD?

Are you trying to make another moral argument because I am dying for you to make a moral argument.

 

[ding]

There are tens of thousands of climate related studies published in peer reviewed papers. Are you claiming they are all part of a scam?

I am claiming what I just told you.

Man is a part of nature.
Man is affecting his environment.
Those changes force other species to adapt or die.
It's very Darwininan.
Man is not an event. Man is part of biological evolution. Glacials, asteroids, volcanos are not part of biological evolution.

Make your moral argument.

 

[Crick]

I haven't brought up ethics, moron. Crick is the one making a moral argument.

What moral argument have I made?

 

[ding]

What moral argument have I made?

So then there's no problem with extinctions? Glad we could settle that.

 

[Crick]

So then there's no problem with extinctions? Glad we could settle that.

I asked what moral argument have I made? I never said extinctions were immoral and it doesn't require morality for extinctions to be a problem.

 

[ding]

I asked what moral argument have I made? I never said extinctions were immoral and it doesn't require morality for extinctions to be a problem.

Man is bad.

 

[Crick]

Man is bad.

Time for you to admit you were wrong. It'll make you feel better to do it.

 

[ding]

Time for you to admit you were wrong. It'll make you feel better to do it.

I'm not wrong though. You are making a moral argument that man is bad for causing extinctions.

I'm arguing the opposite.

1. Man is a part of nature.
2. Man is affecting his environment.
3. Those changes force other species to adapt or die.
4. It's very Darwininan.
5. Man is not an event. Man is part of biological evolution. Glacials, asteroids, volcanos are not part of biological evolution.

 

[Crick]

I'm not wrong though. You are making a moral argument that man is bad for causing extinctions.

I really don't think you want to get into an actual discussion of the morals involved in this issue or any other. Your comments here indicate your grasp of moral philosophy is remedial at best. Comments like " The moral law or the law of right and wrong or the natural law is written into the hearts of men. If the bible had never been written men would still know right from wrong. That's not the problem. The problem is that when they violate it rather than admitting their mistake they rationalize they didn't make a mistake." I have never said that "man was bad". I implied that a mass extinction is not good for humans or the eliminated species. Mass extinctions are NOT evolutionary.

I'm arguing the opposite.

Seeing as I have not made the argument you're opposing, I guess I have some leeway in my response.

1. Man is a part of nature.

When I asked for your definition of "nature" you said "the physical world". You then almost immediately talked about what "matters to nature". You need to sort out in your own head what you actually mean by the term before you attempt to make any use of it in a debate.

1. Man is affecting his environment.

No kidding.

1. Those changes force other species to adapt or die.

Those changes force other species to die. Even the megafauna of North American couldn't adapt when humans migrated on to the continent. Anthropogenic changes these days happen many orders of magnitude to rapidly for a hint of evolutionary adaptation to take place. And for such a self-proclaimed master of science, you don't seem to have any grasp of the actual pace of evolution.

1. It's very Darwininan.

It is not the least bit Darwinian. Species are not being replaced by better adapted mutations, they are simply being wiped out. And their disappearance does not benefit humans.

1. Man is not an event.

That depends on the viewpoint.

1. Man is part of biological evolution.

Is he Humans, with no genetic variations whatsoever, have inhabited every environment on the planet. I would argue that medical science and the other skills we have developed allowing us to modify the environment to our liking has short-circuited evolutionary processes.

1. Glacials, asteroids, volcanos are not part of biological evolution.

The environment is the most important factor in reproductive success. Why do you think we have no polar bears in tropical rainforests or howler monkeys at the South Pole? You really don't know diddly squat about evolution, do you.

 

[Crick]

I really don't think you want to get into an actual discussion of the morals involved in this issue or any other. Your comments here indicate your grasp of moral philosophy is remedial at best. Comments like " The moral law or the law of right and wrong or the natural law is written into the hearts of men. If the bible had never been written men would still know right from wrong. That's not the problem. The problem is that when they violate it rather than admitting their mistake they rationalize they didn't make a mistake." I have never said that "man was bad". I implied that a mass extinction is not good for humans or the eliminated species. Mass extinctions are NOT evolutionary.

Seeing as I have not made the argument you're opposing, I guess I have some leeway in my response.

When I asked for your definition of "nature" you said "the physical world". You then almost immediately talked about what "matters to nature". You need to sort out in your own head what you actually mean by the term before you attempt to make any use of it in a debate.

No kidding.

Those changes force other species to die. Even the megafauna of North American couldn't adapt when humans migrated on to the continent. Anthropogenic changes these days happen many orders of magnitude to rapidly for a hint of evolutionary adaptation to take place. And for such a self-proclaimed master of science, you don't seem to have any grasp of the actual pace of evolution.

It is not the least bit Darwinian. Species are not being replaced by better adapted mutations, they are simply being wiped out. And their disappearance does not benefit humans.

That depends on the viewpoint.

Is he Humans, with no genetic variations whatsoever, have inhabited every environment on the planet. I would argue that medical science and the other skills we have developed allowing us to modify the environment to our liking has short-circuited evolutionary processes.

The environment is the most important factor in reproductive success. Why do you think we have no polar bears in tropical rainforests or howler monkeys at the South Pole? You really don't know diddly squat about evolution, do you.

It may be coincidental that you seem to disappear after having been shown to be incorrect or presented with a troublesome query, but the frequency with which it happens makes that seem somewhat unlikely.

Perhaps you just needed time to think...

 

[ding]

I really don't think you want to get into an actual discussion of the morals involved in this issue or any other. Your comments here indicate your grasp of moral philosophy is remedial at best. Comments like " The moral law or the law of right and wrong or the natural law is written into the hearts of men. If the bible had never been written men would still know right from wrong. That's not the problem. The problem is that when they violate it rather than admitting their mistake they rationalize they didn't make a mistake." I have never said that "man was bad". I implied that a mass extinction is not good for humans or the eliminated species. Mass extinctions are NOT evolutionary.

Seeing as I have not made the argument you're opposing, I guess I have some leeway in my response.

When I asked for your definition of "nature" you said "the physical world". You then almost immediately talked about what "matters to nature". You need to sort out in your own head what you actually mean by the term before you attempt to make any use of it in a debate.

No kidding.

Those changes force other species to die. Even the megafauna of North American couldn't adapt when humans migrated on to the continent. Anthropogenic changes these days happen many orders of magnitude to rapidly for a hint of evolutionary adaptation to take place. And for such a self-proclaimed master of science, you don't seem to have any grasp of the actual pace of evolution.

It is not the least bit Darwinian. Species are not being replaced by better adapted mutations, they are simply being wiped out. And their disappearance does not benefit humans.

That depends on the viewpoint.

Is he Humans, with no genetic variations whatsoever, have inhabited every environment on the planet. I would argue that medical science and the other skills we have developed allowing us to modify the environment to our liking has short-circuited evolutionary processes.

The environment is the most important factor in reproductive success. Why do you think we have no polar bears in tropical rainforests or howler monkeys at the South Pole? You really don't know diddly squat about evolution, do you.

It may be coincidental that you seem to disappear after having been shown to be incorrect or presented with a troublesome query, but the frequency with which it happens makes that seem somewhat unlikely.

I'm just going to talk over you know because your parsing posts is driving me crazy. Critical theory at its finest.

1. Man is a part of nature.
2. Man is affecting his environment.
3. Those changes force other species to adapt or die.
4. It's very Darwininan.
5. Man is not an event. Man is part of biological evolution. Glacials, asteroids, volcanos are not part of biological evolution.

You are trying to not try to make a moral argument and you are failing.

 

[Crick]

I'm just going to talk over you know because your parsing posts is driving me crazy. Critical theory at its finest.

1. Man is a part of nature.
2. Man is affecting his environment.
3. Those changes force other species to adapt or die.
4. It's very Darwininan.
5. Man is not an event. Man is part of biological evolution. Glacials, asteroids, volcanos are not part of biological evolution.

You are trying to not try to make a moral argument and you are failing.

1) Have you decided what definition of "nature" you're using?
2) Of course Man is affecting his environment.
3) I know of NO evolutionary changes to any species in response to human activities. There was a moth in Great Britain that was believed to have turned from white to black in response to coal soot, but that turned out not to be true. Several species have experieneced behavioral changes in response to human incursions into their habitats: pigeons, coyotes, rats, polar bears, etc; but no mutations. The pace of human effects is far, far too rapid to allow evolutionary adaptaation. Even the megafauna of North American 13,000 years ago couldn't keep up with ugly little hominids walking over the Bering Land Bridge.
4) Mass extinctions are not the least bit Darwinian. No mutations have taken place. Nor more suitable species has arisen. Humans have not benefitted from the disappearance of any of the thousands of species we've driven out of existence.
5) Whether or not man may be considered an event is purely up to one's viewpoint. From the viewpoint of an archeologist a million years in the future looking at the stratigraphic record, man would be as much an event as the KT impact, the End Perman Extinction or any of the rest. Environment is a extremely important component to evolution. That is why we have no polar bears in tropical rainforests or howler monkeys at the South Pole.

You don't actually know diddly squat about evolution. You really ought to bone up before you embarrass yourself further.

Is that better?