• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Our World Today: Better or Worse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
*Dark*Master said:
The planet is doomed no matter what, and by 1 billion years you can't say ANYTHING yet Gofre because in 1 billion years we could have made technology to do stuff like this xD
Click to expand...

The technology is going to be used to create a nuclear war and prematurely end the world as we know it.
Of course, it's too soon to say.

I thought this was a thread about the present, not speculating over the future.
 
I agree, lets stay on topic here. Today i went out on run with my dog and i found a group of "gangster" guys drinking booze and throwing their bottles on the ground xD

The world will end sooner than 1 billion years if this keeps up xD
 
lol @ this thread.

~E_M_Y~, unless you have some intelligent reason to say that humans are going to die in 100 years, don't say we will.

It is a fact that according to thermodynamics we will eventually die out. However, that is according to the law of thermodynamics, we don't know exactly what our technology will be in the very distant future so you never know. (We could bypass the law somehow or travel between universes, etc., that would be cool :P)
 
Megera said:
We appear to spending lots more on old people who are going to die soon anyway. Of course, what's worth investing in is subjective, but you can see that NASA really doesn't get that much money, compared to other industries and programs that don't involve rockets.

Also, we're not trying to expand to more planets because of a black hole or that our sun will eventually go supernova: Earth only has so many resources and so much area for people (as well as animals and plants) to live in. Unless we want to start looking like Brazil and build shoddy buildings on top of each other.
Click to expand...

The Sun cannot go nova because it does not have enough mass. In about 6 billion years, it would reach its final stage of evolution as a white dwarf whose mass is prevented from gravitation collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. The sun's mass is below the Chandrashhar limit where a given body cannot be supported by electron degeneracy pressure.
 
Once again, we're discussing the state of the present, not speculating as to our untimely demise.
 
This thread is already full of ignorant, biased, uncredible and just plain silly replies.

Here's a nice fact about lifespans:
The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961, as well as other sources- wikipedia has the sources, do your own damn research:

Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth
(years)​
  • Neanderthal 20
  • Upper Paleolithic 33
  • Neolithic 20
  • Bronze Age 18
  • Classical Greece 20-30
  • Classical Rome 20-30
  • Pre-Columbian North America 25-35
  • Medieval Britain 20-30
  • Early 20th Century 30-40
  • Current world average 66.12 (2008 est.)

> Pollution, rising crime rates, inflation, overpricing, and even the destruction of nature---
are these factors prove that our world, IS NOT THE WAY IT SEEMS TO BE?
Click to expand...
Whilst these are all effects caused by humans, has the world ever been better naturally? What period are you comparing them too?

There have been multiple mass extinction events, such as KT, Ice Age, PT all of which caused massive amounts of natural destruction and change. As well as changes in the atmosphere content, far worse than any level of pollution today.
Concepts of inflation and overpricing only apply to humans, of which they have existed for centuries. This isn't evidence of the world worsening.

We live in the present, comparing it too what's in the past is pointless. Deal with it and enjoy it while you can, because you won't be here for long. ¬_¬
 
Last edited:
Nice explanations, everyone, Jaimes, I saw you researched, and I saw others did good as well.
By the way, I think we should try to be balanced and think wisely.
 
"Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat? But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth." (2 Peter 3:11-13)

El Gofre said:
Yes, when the sun has expended all of its energy it will collapse inwards on itself and become a white dwarf- But before that it will become a red giant. In about a billion years the sun's temperature will have increased to the point that the earth is no longer hospitable, so we don't need to worry about running out of heat :)
[PokeCommunity.com] Our World Today: Better or Worse?
Click to expand...
No, just not this again...
https://video.google.com/videoplay?...1KxSN-sLpCuigK0zv3hDA&q=Creation+and+Miracles
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp
A picture worth a thousand words?

[PokeCommunity.com] Our World Today: Better or Worse?

Fresh tissue, according to Jurrasic park, could only last for 7000 years, not 70,000,000 years!
 
Last edited:
Macabre said:
Couldn't watch it further than two minutes because it was so godawful.

I would also like to know what's the theory behind claiming humankind will die in hundred years.
Click to expand...
What a terrible excuse...
 
"Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which blah blah blah blah[/B]
Click to expand...
That's not science. That's religion. Observe the upcoming diagram and then try to contribute something that actually makes sense and is logical.
Spoiler:


Also the links you provided are all absurd and biased. No credible scientist believes earth to have homed 10,000 million+ species within 6000 years, nor is 'Jurassic Park' a scientific documentary.
Before using your beliefs to overthrow scientific understanding why not actually educate yourself on the matter beforehand?
 
Jaimes said:
That's not science. That's religion. Observe the upcoming diagram and then try to contribute something that actually makes sense and is logical.
Spoiler:


Also the links you provided are all absurd and biased. No credible scientist believes earth to have homed 10,000 million+ species within 6000 years, nor is 'Jurassic Park' a scientific documentary.
Before using your beliefs to overthrow scientific understanding why not actually educate yourself on the matter beforehand?
Click to expand...
Have you even bothered looking at the links I supplied? Oh, I should be more specific? Here you go:
https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: "The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it's caricatured as non-scientific).
Click to expand...
Oh, and "absurd and biased" is the easiest way to shack off things. Did you even bother looking at least on one link entirely?
 
Froslass said:
Have you even bothered looking at the links I supplied? Oh, I should be more specific? Here you go:
https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
Click to expand...
Obviously (and thankfully I'm glad to say) you're not a scientist. Under certain conditions, low temp, low O2 etc, a tissue can be preserved so that cells can survive for virtually billions of years. Said conditions are rare, but possible (e.g ice ages and the effects of peat and amber) and as carbon dating has proven are not limited to "thousands" of years.
If you look at the same article from a more respectable & credible News Website then it says nothing about it being 'proof of a young earth', of which it isn't, just the impressive ability of the preservation and how the tissue can be used for scientific understanding and research on the prehistoric species.

Froslass said:
Oh, and "absurd and biased" is the easiest way to shack off things. Did you even bother looking at least on one link entirely?
Click to expand...
Well you posted links to a Creationist website, yes that is very biased, as are selected videos of Youtube & Google Video. And yes the concept of creationism is arguably absurd to a scientific or common-sensual community.
Did you even bother looking at a News website/Encyclopedia/Science book before abusing this thread in a cheap ploy to promote your religious beliefs? Seriously, do some actual scientific research rather than ignoring it.

Also your failed attempt to show the earth as being 4.53billion years younger than it actually is, has caused this thread to go off-topic. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
Obviously (and thankfully I'm glad to say) you're not a scientist. Under certain conditions, low temp, low O2 etc, a tissue can be preserved so that cells can survive for virtually billions of years. Said conditions are rare, but possible (e.g ice ages and the effects of peat and amber) and as carbon dating has proven are not limited to "thousands" of years.
If you look at the same article from a more respectable & credible News Website then it says nothing about it being 'proof of a young earth', of which it isn't, just the impressive ability of the preservation and how the tissue can be used for scientific understanding and research on the prehistoric species.
Click to expand...
So how come the "scientists" themselfs were suprised? Scientists were suprised to discover mammoths buried under deep ice in Siberia, whom they date to be 20,000 years old. That suprised them as well.
Just to let you know-scientists don't call themselfs just "scientists". They call themselfs by their expertise. Science is such a broad turm it is almost meaningless. But, of couse, it makes you feel better as they are scientists". Take that to your account.
Well you posted links to a Creationist website, yes that is very biased, as are selected videos of Youtube & Google Video. And yes the concept of creationism is arguably absurd to a scientific or common-sensual community.
Click to expand...
I can ignore your claims as well. That's not the way to make a consideration.
"Did you even bother looking at a News website/Encyclopedia/Science book before abusing this thread in a cheap ploy to promote your religious beliefs? Seriously, do some actual scientific research rather than ignoring it."
Of course, I learned astronomy when I was 9 with the aged folks at Astronomy advocates here in Israel.
Again, just "science", such a broad term.
Also your failed attempt to show the earth as being 4.53billion years younger than it actually is, has caused this thread to go off-topic. Congratulations.
Click to expand...
Falied? I would like to see how you disprove this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R28GP-FsAYI
Again, a "scientist".
 
Froslass said:
So how come the "scientists" themselfs were suprised? Scientists were suprised to discover mammoths buried under deep ice in Siberia, whom they date to be 20,000 years old. That suprised them as well.
Click to expand...
Wow, you know vaguely what 'surprised' means.
Anyone would be surprised if they were to stumble upon a rare event, it's not everyday a Cretacious relic is unearthed with soft tissue in. What's your point?
I would be 'surprised' if somebody parachuted into my bedroom, I would be 'surprised' if I unearthed my own fossil, etc. Discovering something unexpected that doesn't make anything less impossible.

No-one besides the annoyingly condescending creationist author in your article claim it to be less than its real age. Carbon dating is reliable enough to support this. Preservation of ancient matter happens, this is just another example of religion being selective about scientific evidence, distorting it to their own desire and then ignoring the mass contradicting bits.

Just to let you know-scientists don't call themselfs just "scientists". They call themselfs by their expertise. Science is such a broad turm it is almost meaningless. But, of couse, it makes you feel better as they are scientists". Take that to your account.
Click to expand...
Reading the below would probably benefit your IQ.
Spoiler:
Scientists use extensive experiments, observation and make logical deductions based on evidence to find out truth. A 1500year old book and its stories, do not account for any of these no matter how hard you believe in it.

Science is such a broad turm it is almost meaningless. But, of couse, it makes you feel better as they are scientists". Take that to your account.
Click to expand...
Science is not a broad term (or 'turm' lol), it is a broad subject. If I reluctanctly point you towards a dictionary definition again, its ideal and terms are quite straightforward. The aim is to discover and gain understanding of the world around us. If you hadn't thought it earlier, there is a lot about the world to discover and understand. Take that to your account.
Also how is it meaningless? Don't even get me started on the arrogance and stupidity behind your pathetic one-liner.

Of course, I learned astronomy when I was 9 with the aged folks at Astronomy advocates here in Israel.
Again, just "science", such a broad term.
Click to expand...
And I got a Nobel Prize when I was 7.
You clearly didn't learn much if you think the entire galaxy was fashioned on a supernatural whim a few thousands of years ago. Sorry for stating the obvious; that's not science, that's a fantasy.
There's so much evidence to support the cosmos' real age; carbon dating, geological movement, formation of types of rocks, fossil evidence, ancestral history, simulations, the speed of light in relation to other galaxies, even common sense - the list goes on.
Also, have some links of scientific, secular and unbiased evidence as well. I could arrogantly tell you to disprove all of those (like you said earlier), but it's pretty unlikely you're going to disprove a thing (let alone read them). At best, lazily post another Youtube link.

Falied? I would like to see how you disprove this:
Some lame video HAHA DISREGARD THAT
Again, a "scientist".
Click to expand...
I don't see what evolution has to do with radiation from Polonium. Thanks for wasting my time on a pointless video.
Ironically Youtube is a largely secular community, it wouldn't be too difficult for me list hundreds of interesting links with rather compelling factual evidence and scientific basis (which you probably won't watch anyway).

Since you can't make up your own points and simply list links to cower behind and then whine when noone looks at them, I would highly recommend that you stop replying to prevent yourself from failing further, though feel free to angrily send me PMs.

Also you haven't posted a single comment related to the title of the thread - unfortunately skewering it painfully off quite an interesting topic.
 
Last edited:
El Gofre said:
Yes, when the sun has expended all of its energy it will collapse inwards on itself and become a white dwarf- But before that it will become a red giant. In about a billion years the sun's temperature will have increased to the point that the earth is no longer hospitable, so we don't need to worry about running out of heat :)
Click to expand...
I have another theory,the hydrogen that is fueling the Sun may run out one day.But its just a theory though..(Nice pic.)

Gymnotide said:
Except viruses aren't organisms.
Click to expand...
Yeah, their chemicals that act like living organisms

El Gofre said:
No it isnt. Can I have some reasoning please?
Click to expand...
I just estimated that-Global Warming,Food shortage are the factors,etc.(If your taking the mass decrease of humans everywhere..)

Yamikarasu said:
lol @ this thread.

~E_M_Y~, unless you have some intelligent reason to say that humans are going to die in 100 years, don't say we will.

It is a fact that according to thermodynamics we will eventually die out. However, that is according to the law of thermodynamics, we don't know exactly what our technology will be in the very distant future so you never know. (We could bypass the law somehow or travel between universes, etc., that would be cool :P)
Click to expand...
Im not saying we will its just an approximation!!
 
What the...I'm going to kill him...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top