Why do evolutionists protect endagered species???

[Cthulhu Dreaming]

(4th April 2012 22:47)elunico13 Wrote:  Let me be more specific than. Where do YOU find justification to decide what is and isn't destructive behavior?

Really, it's quite simple. If human activity destroys a thing (e.g. habitat), then it would seem to be a simple deduction that said activity was destructive.

Too complex of a concept for you, perhaps?

[Stimbo]

(4th April 2012 22:38)Stimbo Wrote:  I look forward to seeing none of this addressed in your reply.

And you didn't disappoint. My ever-increasing powers of prophecy are starting to amaze even me.

[elunico13]

(4th April 2012 23:05)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:  

(4th April 2012 22:47)elunico13 Wrote:  Let me be more specific than. Where do YOU find justification to decide what is and isn't destructive behavior?

Really, it's quite simple. If human activity destroys a thing (e.g. habitat), then it would seem to be a simple deduction that said activity was destructive.

Too complex of a concept for you, perhaps?

Is that an absolute fact?

[popeyespappy]

(4th April 2012 18:24)elunico13 Wrote:  By doing this they are contradicting their beliefs about natural selection, but so much time, money and effort goes into these projects. Could it be a reason contrary to what they believe? I think so.

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ are you for real? Never mind scratch that. Of course you’re for real. You’re a moronic goddunitist. It’s not natural selection when a species goes extinct due to anthropogenic reasons. When a species goes extinct because people with guns killed them all or poisoned the environment the live in nature didn’t select them to die people did. I guess it would be too much to ask that a fuckwad such as you has ever even considered the importance of biodiversity to the future of the only place in the universe we know harbors life….

Let me leave this here for you consider.

Quote: Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on Earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.
The Living Planet Index, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians has dropped by almost a third in the last 35 years.

"You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report.

The main reasons for species extinction are pollution, farming and urban expansion, overfishing and hunting, the report said.

Between 1960 and 2000, the world's population doubled, said Ben Collen, one of the authors of the report.

Decline 'caused by humans'

"Yet during the same period, animal populations have declined by 30 per cent on average. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans," he said.

The report tracks birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians around the world. Marine bird species alone have fallen by 30 per cent between 1995 and 2005, it said.

As well, between 1970 and 2005, land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine by 28 per cent and freshwater by 29 per cent.

"Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives, so it is alarming that despite an increased awareness of environmental issues we continue to see a downtrend trend," said WWF campaign head Colin Butfield.

The report comes in the lead up to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn next week.

More than 5,000 delegates will gather from May 19-30 to "discuss the protection and the preservation of species and habitats, a sustainable use of biological diversity as well as a fair distribution of access and exploitation," the conference website says.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/...cline.html

[Cthulhu Dreaming]

(5th April 2012 00:13)elunico13 Wrote:  

(4th April 2012 23:05)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:  

(4th April 2012 22:47)elunico13 Wrote:  Let me be more specific than. Where do YOU find justification to decide what is and isn't destructive behavior?

Really, it's quite simple. If human activity destroys a thing (e.g. habitat), then it would seem to be a simple deduction that said activity was destructive.

Too complex of a concept for you, perhaps?

Is that an absolute fact?

It's an observation.

Here's another: you don't appear to be conducting yourself in good faith.

Just an observation.

[Faith No More]

Is it April Fool's again already?

[Alternate]

Natural selection happens. Natural selection stacked over a long period of time and millions of generations is evolution. In the past, many animal species went extinct because they did not evolve quickly enough. Still, many survived because they could evolve (relatively) quickly.

However, in the modern day, humans kill so many animals so quickly that soon many species will be extinct before evolution on their part is even noticeable. Therefore, to preserve the natural beauty of the planet, (emotional) and ensure that we have a working ecosystem (logical) we must take steps to ensure that animals don't go completely extinct. Humans have upset a careful balance because the other species simply can't compete with our great intelligence. We have too massive of an evolutionary advantage. Now it's up to us to ensure that we don't break our environment.

[AthiestAtheist]

(4th April 2012 19:39)Minimalist Wrote:  I think that, like most xtian shitballs, you have your head up your ass.

Conservationists look to preserve endangered species.

"Evolutionists" (whatever the fuck that may mean to a jesus freak like you) may or may not be conservationists.

I realize that for jesus freaks there are never any shades of gray but do try to think just a little bit.

Oh come on, even I didn't know that!

[elunico13]

(4th April 2012 22:38)Stimbo Wrote:  

(4th April 2012 18:24)elunico13 Wrote:  By doing this they are contradicting their beliefs about natural selection, but so much time, money and effort goes into these projects. Could it be a reason contrary to what they believe? I think so.

All this is built on the presupposition that evolution is predicated on human actions. Natural selection is the dominant force propelling evolution in natural environments, not artifical recreations as in zoos. Any situation involving human intervention in species' survival is by definition the opposite of natural selection, except by way of the fact that humans are themselves the product of nature.

To assert that natural selection is a belief system of "evolutionists" is plain silly by itself, but to compound that with a triumphal claim that this belief must not be supportable because of all the money funnelled into saving endangered species is true tinfoil hat conspiracy territory. How about all the gravitationists spending vast sums of money so they can fly about in big metal birds? Could it be a reason contrary to what they believe? I think so.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the Big Bang. In fact, since it's nothing to do with evolution anyway, best not to mention it in this context at all.

I look forward to seeing none of this addressed in your reply.

You're accusing me of asserting but you do the same right back. Sounds like your taking the side of your bumble bee friend.

[Stimbo]

Except that my assertions (which of course you never specify) are supported by direct, physical evidence. Please try to keep up.