Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
    For the same reason we fight viruses, bacteria, tigers, earthquakes, hurricanes etc from killing us off. Just because something is "natural", doesn't mean we have to submissively accept it and let it hurt us.

    Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
      Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.
      It's called the naturalistic fallacy. And you're right, just because something is natural does not mean that it's good. Otherwise pedophilia would have to be acceptable. There are other reasons that homosexuality is acceptable, but that seems out-of-scope for this thread.
      Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
        There are other reasons that homosexuality is acceptable, but that seems out-of-scope for this thread.
        Are you trying to tell us something?

        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
          Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.
          Doesn't make it bad either.

          A lot of the "gay is natural" argument stems from the anti-homo argument that goes that it's un-natural. So hopefully having put paid to that, the anti-homo crowd now try to make out that the only reason people who don't have a problem with gay people is that it's natural.



          It's not a problem because homosexual relationships with adults don't intrinsically differ from a lot of heterosexual relationships - and although they may differ proportionally in certain tendencies, both groups run the gamit from vanilla to Häagen Dazs's white chocolate raspberry truffle, sexually.

          In essence, if a man is naturally violent, that would be a problem, even so. But if a man is pleasant, naturally, that's not a problem.

          Theres no problem where there's no problem...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Knight View Post
            Are you trying to tell us something?

            I'll leave that to your imagination for now.
            Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Knight View Post
              I thought the latest was that dinosaurs were descendants of birds?
              Other way round, surely?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by icilian fenner View Post
                Doesn't make it bad either.

                A lot of the "gay is natural" argument stems from the anti-homo argument that goes that it's un-natural. So having put paid to that, the anti-homo crowd now try to make out that the only reason people who don't have a problem with gay people is that it's natural.



                It's not a problem because homosexual relationships with adults don't intrinsically differ from a lot of heterosexual relationships - and although they may differ proportionally in certain tendencies, both groups run the gamit from vanilla to Häagen Dazs's white chocolate raspberry truffle, sexually.

                In essence, if a man is naturally violent, that would be a problem, even so. But if a man is pleasant, naturally, that's not a problem.

                Theres no problem where there's no problem...
                Uh, we are getting way off topic here but I think it's pretty safe to say homosexuality is unnatural. That really isn't much of a stretch is it.... I mean... even a basic understanding of biology can make that clear. (please, please, lets not explore this much further because it gets too gross very quickly).

                All I will say is... certain body parts are obviously made to fit with other body parts. As my dad used to say about homosexuals.... "it's no different than trying to breath through your liver." ....errrrr.... something like that.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by MrRadish View Post
                  Other way round, surely?


                  Yes... switch that up.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    Uh, we are getting way off topic here but I think it's pretty safe to say homosexuality is unnatural. That really isn't much of a stretch is it.... I mean... even a basic understanding of biology can make that clear. (please, please, lets not explore this much further because it gets too gross very quickly).

                    And sure, let's reign back on the argument - the most important point I was making is that the reason people argue for homosexuality being accepted isn't exclusively on the grounds of 'it's natural'.

                    Whether or not that belief is in error doesn't change that the argument isn't'it's not a problem, since it's natural'.

                    DISCLAIMER: I'm sure people argue sometimes exclusively on this basis, as all sides of a debate have it's share of foolish remarks.

                    All I will say is... certain body parts are obviously made to fit with other body parts. As my dad used to say about homosexuals.... "it's no different than trying to breath through your liver." ....errrrr.... something like that.


                    That's a case against sodomy (and oral sex?). Whoops.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                      For the same reason we fight viruses, bacteria, tigers, earthquakes, hurricanes etc from killing us off. Just because something is "natural", doesn't mean we have to submissively accept it and let it hurt us.
                      Sorry, Knight. I didn't mean to derail the conversation. I was just pointing out the aforementioned argument has been used in other circumstances.

                      My apologies.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        I thought the latest was that dinosaurs were descendants of birds?
                        Other way round, birds are descendents of dinosaurs.

                        Personally I think the asteroid theory of the Late Cretaceous extinction is rather... unconvincing. At least as a primary cause. There almost certainly was a major impact around the time of the KT boundary - Iridium and glass in the intervening layer strongly point to it, and we've found a pretty damn big crater dating to the period.

                        However, the Late Cretaceous event is only one of a number of major extinction event (one of five referred to as 'the big five') and not one of the others has corresponding evidence for an major impact at the same time. I find it more likely that there is an underlying explanation for all extinction events.

                        Moreover, the nature of the extinctions doesn't seem to me to match with any sudden cause. In fact, the number of dinosaur genera was already falling well before the KT boundary, with several major groups going extinct well before the impact and others in decline. The same is true of other less striking groups that disappeared around the same time. Even those that disappeared 'suddenly' at the end of the KT probably disappeared over the course of some 100,000-250,000 years - an eyeblink in geological time but a much longer period that any particulates from the impact would have remained in the atmosphere. And, yes, there probably would have been a more lasting climatic shift as a result of the impact, but there the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years and weathered a great many climatic shifts before their end. Finally, there is no clear pattern in terms of body size, habitat or apparent lifestyle among those that did or didn't get wiped out - something that an extinction event precipitated by a meteor strike would be expected to produce.

                        Oh, and one last point: computer simulations of evolution produce extinction events without any external input.
                        If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Knight View Post
                          I thought the latest was that dinosaurs were descendants of birds?
                          No, birds are the descendants of SOME dinosaurs, the smaller ornithischians.
                          "Those who have crossed
                          With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                          Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                          Violent souls, but only
                          As the hollow men
                          The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
                            Yeah...

                            I remember when I was a kid, I had one of those Golden Books with dinosaurs all over the front. It described the T-rex as slow...lumbering...cumbersome...upright, and dragging its tale behind it.

                            Now, 35 years later, we're supposed to believe they were quick and moving upright, more like a bird.
                            Let's hear a round of applause for the advance of knowledge that is science!
                            How did they decide this about a bunch of animals the "experts" have never actually seen?
                            Comparing the skeletal structure of extinct animals with those of living ones. Making models based on what we DO know and drawing conclusions. Revising what DO know as new fossils are discovered. Nobody said it was easy.
                            All they have are some bones...but we're supposed to take as fact this new line of "conclusions."
                            As provisional "fact", rather- taking into account that we haven't actually observed them alive and are basing our conclusions on a limited amount of information.
                            "Those who have crossed
                            With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                            Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                            Violent souls, but only
                            As the hollow men
                            The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
                              Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.
                              It doesn't necessarily make it bad, either. We must take other factors into consideration- in the case of global warming or cooling for example, our own survival could possibly be concern to some of us. Maybe it would be a good thing in terms of the evolution of some other species that could move into niches now held by us bossy humans, but I sure ain't planning on throwing in the towel so some cockroaches can live easier.
                              "Those who have crossed
                              With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                              Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                              Violent souls, but only
                              As the hollow men
                              The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
                                Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.
                                Gays are the leading cause of hurricanes. And drama llamas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X