3 ms·

Yeah. The assumption that the Earth's environment parameters have been stable for billions of years is bunk. (Especially ironic if the person is railing about '

Yeah. The assumption that the Earth's environment parameters have been stable for billions of years is bunk. (Especially ironic if the person is railing about 'global warming' at the same time.)

acqq 8y ago
Implicit in your sentence is however an assumption that there was any life comparable to today's during the "billions of years" which is false. More than just 500 million years ago there were not even plants on the land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution So it's simply wrong mentioning "billions of years" when humans worry for the environment in which they can live while depending on it. For most of the "billions" of years on Earth, there wasn't anything on land, and the "life" in oceans was not something we understand as today's life, and the environment could not support our life (as in, there was not even enough oxygen!). The Earth started to "resemble its present state" only less than 400 million years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_h... Human civilizations exists only less than ten thousands of years, during which the climate was very stable (until the recent human influences): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world
- otabdeveloper1 8y ago
  You're replying to voices in your head, it seems. I never mentioned anything about any form of life at all. (Or any time scales either, for that matter.) My comment was that the 18th century idea of uniformitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism) is obviously wrong, and discussions about prehistory need to take this into account.
  - acqq 8y ago
    Luckily, everybody can see what you have actually written before. The "18th century idea of uniformitarianism" was definitely not your main problem there, rather the much more recent developments.

Yeah. The assumption that the Earth's environment parameters have been stable for billions of years is bunk. (Especially ironic if the person is railing about 'global warming' at the same time.)

acqq 8y ago

Implicit in your sentence is however an assumption that there was any life comparable to today's during the "billions of years" which is false. More than just 500 million years ago there were not even plants on the land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution So it's simply wrong mentioning "billions of years" when humans worry for the environment in which they can live while depending on it. For most of the "billions" of years on Earth, there wasn't anything on land, and the "life" in oceans was not something we understand as today's life, and the environment could not support our life (as in, there was not even enough oxygen!). The Earth started to "resemble its present state" only less than 400 million years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_h... Human civilizations exists only less than ten thousands of years, during which the climate was very stable (until the recent human influences): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world

otabdeveloper1 8y ago
You're replying to voices in your head, it seems. I never mentioned anything about any form of life at all. (Or any time scales either, for that matter.) My comment was that the 18th century idea of uniformitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism) is obviously wrong, and discussions about prehistory need to take this into account.
- acqq 8y ago
  Luckily, everybody can see what you have actually written before. The "18th century idea of uniformitarianism" was definitely not your main problem there, rather the much more recent developments.