We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4195
Latest Activity: Aug 15

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Neanderthals, Denisovans and ancestor X

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 7. 3 Replies

The evolution of work

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 12. 61 Replies

Has man evolved?

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 18. 5 Replies

The Probability Of Being

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 11. 4 Replies

Johns Hopkins Receives $125,000,000 to Fight Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 1. 2 Replies

A new theory explaining the origins of life?

Started by Donald L. Engel. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 31. 5 Replies

Map of Archaic Ancestry

Started by Qiana-Maieev. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 29. 5 Replies

Homo Erectus food processing

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 19. 1 Reply

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:48am
In Larry's previous long post regarding his WordPress blog, he says we should prepare to survive the effects of global warming as they are naturally coming with little input from man's emissions. If this is true, then he is correct in saying we should prepare. That means enhancing infrastructure because we sure as hell are not going to evolve into creatures capable of living in the environment that is coming. So, he is essentially saying DO NOTHING for the environment. We are saying "do every thing possible to reduce pollution"

I think I would rather work with nature than retreat into a protective coccoon, augmented with essentials while pretending that nothing is going on outside.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:38am
Adrian Lea...WoW, well said.

The equilibrium aspect is even harder to get across to sceptics. We began infringing on it in the eqrly 1800's but only recently have we overwhelmed it.

If it were possible to stop all carbon emissions, the earth could recover in decades, in a normal lifetime...this flexibility and ability to recover has been compromised greatly however and the goals the earth struggles with are far below the ideal level humans might enjoy and thrive under. In other words, we have compromised the living conditions of humans for the next 2 or 3 centuries, if, IF we act radically NOW.

My aunt would say of Larry: "Some people just don't see ugly"...laughter

The environment as an entirely natural structure, has an exceptionally vicious attitude towards life. ANY change to this naturalness increases this threat.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:14am
We have the science Larry, from every field of inquiry, we HAVE laid it on the simply choose to ignore it. You are, in every way, a FunDummie and you are employing their argument style in every respect.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:11am
Actually, there has never been a time when everyone thought the world was flat. However, there will always be ignorant people who believe the world is flat and that global warming by the people is fallacious.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:09am
The sentence is out of context but I feel the intent is not responsible to the future...excuse the out of context post, corrections are not possible in these replies for some reason.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:07am
It won't affect me so why should I care?...hard to misunderstand that Larry.

We all have a duty to the future.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 9:05am
"The power needs of the US, RIGHT NOW (without allowing for any increase) would require the building of 8,400 nuclear power plants."

This is obviously an error.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on November 30, 2009 at 10:22pm
Well Rudy, this garbage is just as evident and equally abundant in the air as on earth. Therefore it is a climate issue. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it disappeared into leftist gaga land.
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on November 30, 2009 at 6:59pm
Again though, I think we need to stress more what Ogden was talking about, (even the "uneducated" can see that) because you don't get a lot of sympathy for GW up here. The difference between -40 warming up to -38 = still damn cold for us northerners LOL. You must understand, in my country the average temp can be a 5 degree Celsius difference depending on the area, but the environment is exactly the same (plant and animal species) therefore they don't see 2 degrees being a big deal. Most people don't look past their own backyard.
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on November 30, 2009 at 4:40pm
I agree 100% with what you wrote Ogden, but to fair to Larry, none of that had anything to do with climate. Pollution and deforestation, yes. Being a farmer, I witness fellow land owners knocking down trees and plowing up native pasture on a yearly basis, but that's another topic. And I've already mention we have a SEVERE problem with pollution.

As for global warming I'm still waiting for more definitive evidence like Larry. It's the old "tree in the forest" dilemma. Yes we witness things like ice caps breaking off in the Acrtic, but the question remains, did it count if it happened back in the 18th or 19th century when no one was there to record it? In other words many argue due to technology and communication we simply know of and are able to find out about easier.

What scares me is over reaction. I hear scientists suggesting dumping MORE crap in the atmosphere or putting up "shades" to block the sun to counteract GW. No ones going to convince me they know exactly what the results are going to be when we start screwing around with the atmosphere on purpose. Too many variables involved.

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to GW, I also believe it's "better to be safe than sorry", but we can also make things worse if we're not careful.

Members (4192)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service