DMD 0.175 release -- CO2

[John Reimer]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:58:28 -0800, Carlos Santander  
<csantander619 at gmail.com> wrote:


>
> You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while  
> humans have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and  
> no other species seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans  
> have (specially in the last couple of centuries.) You point out  
> volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, but they have been here far  
> longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already adapted to them. Has it  
> adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is still unknown,  
> and that uncertainty is what I fear.
>


Okay... wikipedia is making some pretty assertive claims if it knows how  
old this earth is, or the universe for that matter.  Most honest  
scientists wouldn't even claim that. I'm not surprised, I guess, given  
that being the "popular" belief.  The age seems to change every year.

None of that is science.  None of it is scientifically verifiable.  It's  
based on assumptions and presumptions, much of it inprecise and  
outrageous.  It's the age-old problem of origins, metaphysics, and  
philosophy.  Science has no business there; nor can it prove the truth of  
such an ancient existance: it has no mastery of time such that it can look  
back "millions of years" to be first hand witnesses to such events.


> I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much  
> like treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to  
> each thing you might say or do, you have to be careful in everything.  
> That's it. I'm also sorry I can't come up with more logical reasons, and  
> instead base my decisions on fear.
>


Hey, no problem... this is not necessarily a good place to get into this,  
Carlos, and I appreciate your input.  But, I must say you sure opened a  
"whole can of worms" with your earth dates. ;)

-JJR