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: 4192
Latest Activity: 2 hours ago

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 Qiana-Maieev 2 hours ago. 1 Reply

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 Susan Stanko on December 1, 2009 at 3:33pm
I agree with Don. You give your arguments without bullying anyone.
Comment by Nate on December 1, 2009 at 3:10pm
Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Scientist Finds

ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — The world's oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide (CO2), a Yale geophysicist has found after pooling data taken over the past 50 years. With the oceans currently absorbing over 40 percent of the CO2 emitted by human activity, this could quicken the pace of climate change, according to the study, which appears in the November 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Sorry if this was mentioned before, there's a lot to wade through here.
Comment by Susan Stanko on December 1, 2009 at 1:54pm
You know I was sympathetic to you until you decided to assume what type of person I am based on no evidence what so ever. You were given evidence but insist on beleiving what you want. Do theories get changed based on new evidence? Yes. Should science just stop making predictions because they might be wrong>?NO.
Comment by Susan Stanko on December 1, 2009 at 1:25pm
Larry, I am not a scientist in anyway but, I took your statement to mean exactly how Ogden took it to mean. The only person who seems to be acting unreasonable is you.

BTW, I read in Science News that Scientists never claimed a Global Cooling phenomena. Some people who refuse to accept Global Warming are using out of context quotes to make scientists look stupid.
Comment by Constance Ward on December 1, 2009 at 11:12am
What an fun debate to observe! However, it seems that this debate is getting quite heated so I thought I'd point out something that made me laugh in spite of the heated words. Does anyone else find it funny that it seems the worst name one can call someone on this site is a religionist or anything like that? Anyway, just thought I'd point that out because even though I don't really like name calling I glad that I'm on a site where people know that being called a religionist implies being close-minded and illogical and thus is an insult. Now I don't have any scientific credentials but I figured that I will go ahead and add my 2 cents in on this debate too. I really don't see where the people who don't wish to do anything about global warming are coming from. Do you not believe that the world is warming? If you do, who cares what caused it (even though, from what I hear, evidence point to human activities being a factor) the effects are bad for us either way and so we ought to do as much as we can to stop these effects (or at least lessen the damage).
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on December 1, 2009 at 10:16am
My problem is I just discovered Pen & Teller's Bullshit program and some of it is sinking in...LOL
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on December 1, 2009 at 10:06am
One other point I didn't mention. Some species will survive, but humans may not? What other animal (or plant for that matter) is able to adapt to every single continent/climate on Earth, as well as on the ocean and in space? Dandelion comes close, but no cigar. That is outright fear mongering.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 10:04am
I acquiesed to the out of context quote but I won't give in to your obvious sentiments or lack therof for the future Larry.
Comment by Ogden Lafaye on December 1, 2009 at 10:03am
Now I disagree with Larry AND Rudy...laughter...but that doesn't mean I am an enemy. Far from it...this is a very entertaining discussion.
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on December 1, 2009 at 9:55am
Years ago we were told we were heading for an ice age...I blindly followed and agreed. Later the same people said, no it's global warming...I blindly followed and agreed. Later I became an atheist and learned to question.

To say any of the natural disasters today is unprecedented in such a short time period is simply false. According to historical records (yeah I hate when people say that too) here in North America between approx. 1000 BC and 800 AD the weather was of such that allowed ideal growing conditions across the continent and as a result cities of the native peoples flourished in the tens of thousands. Immediately following, drought and famine ensued, of which, they never really recovered. Everyone knows the rest of the story when the "white man" arrived. It happens.

My other point is, to many people talk like weather prediction is an exact science. Just yesterday, we received a snow storm that wasn't predicted until it was literally on top of us. And as a farmer whose livelihood is dependent upon the weather, I can assure you a 3 day forecast is moderately accurate, 7 day VERY questionable, and 2 week? Simply doesn't work. On rare occasions it hits, but law of averages easily can account for that. I can honestly say the Farmers Almanac is just as reliable (50-50). And now we're supposedly suppose to believe we can predict decades ahead?

Just heard last month on the news, they now say the arctic ice cap will be gone within 10 years. So I'm putting it here and in writing, "It may be reduced, but it will still be there". Let's wait and see who's right (^_-).

Members (4190)



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