When it will come down to the last 1000 people on this planet, 400 will be arguing about whether or not humans really have a bad impact on this planet; 50 will be trying to lord it over the rest, using another gullible 150 as muscle; 200 will be looking for ways to turn a profit out of the situation; and the rest will weeping somewhere in a corner.
If we look at WP [0] there were way more than five extinctions in the past, but each extinction is preceded by an explosion of new life forms, and that is what define many "geologic periods":
* Great Oxygenation Event: Multicellular life forms emerge.
* End-Ediacaran extinction led to the Cambrian explosion: Animal phyla appears
* Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event led to the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event: Pelagic life forms colonize reefs and shallow waters.
* Ordovician–Silurian extinction events led to Silurian period which saw multi-cellular life moving to earth, not only on sea. On sea, fishes and sharks were now thriving.
* Plants thrived in Devonian after most Silurian life disappeared in another "extinction".
I can't hold my laugh when I see this kind of article AND repercussion. The funniest part is that most people who believe it downplay religious thoughts and dogmas but is this any different? This is a genesis flood fairytale from any angle I see it.
It's almost like Scientists, even with dedicating their lives to research, can be wrong.
Would you have sided with the majority of the Mathematics community who have "dedicated their life to submitting work to peer review" in the 19th century when they were trying to force Cantor out of academia for his creation of the "evil and nonintellectual" Set Theory, which contradicted what they had known about Maths at that time?
Obviously they can be wrong, and you can prove that by submitting real research, not by vacuously dismissing it as false without doing the legwork which Cantor did.
Ironically the same can be said about your dismissal of religious knowledge as guesswork. I bet you didn't prove it wrong submitting real research, just vacuously dismissed it like the guy before you.
Your researchers look a lot like ancient priests to me and it is acceptable to find excessive religious believers funny, so I think it is this the case. Do you believe our current science would be something more than shamanism compared to Science (or another new religion) in the year of 3017?
> That is completely different because religion is not based on testable and provable increments increases in knowledge, rather superstition and guesswork. You clearly do not understand the scientific method.
This is prejudice against others faith, religion AND science. Alchemy was the science back then and the base of current chemistry but is religious work, that also increases people's knowledge. I could explain the same with Buddhism and how its knowledge could save billions of lives, but I'm not a religious guy (much less fundamentalist). Just skeptical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c