Such things like the earth is going to be totally destroyed in "this many" years. That Global Warming could destroy the ozone layer (that is not the bad part...its real) and let the rays and heat of the sun burn the earth to a crisp.
And these ideas and stuff are always supported by Evolutionists...why don't we call them both negatitionists and destructionists or something?
2006-09-05 23:39:57 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
thats a good point. i'm a very scientific person. the fact is that there are as many good findings as bad ones. but the bad ones get more publicity because it gets peoples attention. think about this whats more likely to get attention and publicity a newly found star system or (THE WORLD IS GOING TO END) it's all about propaganda. here is a cool site that gives some good and bad info.
2006-09-05 23:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As other have noted, it's to some extent media bias. There's plenty of good news, also from science, but they don't reach the front pages.
But it's also easier to get funding for your research if you can provide bad news, because sponsors then want to know what can be done about it. For example, when Bjorn Lomborg published his "The skeptical environmentalist", scientists got very upset because he dared to say that the state of the World is not that bad after all.
As for evolutionists .... 99.9% of scientists are evolutionists and this probably applies to both the "destructionists" and the rest of us.
2006-09-06 07:16:13 · answer #2 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because no matter how good the idealistic use of anything is, there is always another facet that no one foresees. Their intentions, typically, are noble...
Even something as simple as a cure for cancer...sounds great right? But what would the increase in people surviving to be progressively older and older do to the overall social structure? Would we come to a point where we have to choose who gets medical care or not?
Many of the scientists who worked on the atomic bomb saw it as the weapon that would ultimately make wars a thing of the past...
Many of the things that we are now learning are damaging to the earth also freed many people from back breaking labor and a multitude of other benefits. As they say...no good deed goes unpunished...
2006-09-06 06:50:50 · answer #3 · answered by T.I. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually scientists don't believe that global warming will destroy the ozone layer. Better check your facts. Scientists don't actually even know if global warming will have any bad effects at all. Its all just speculation on worst case scenarios. Sadly the environmental movement grabs hold of worst case scenarios and treats them as if they are facts. Wrong!
2006-09-06 07:52:20 · answer #4 · answered by uselessadvice 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because the world thrives on negativity. If you were to have a major story on something good that someone did and a major story on something bad that someone did, what do you think would make the front page? The bad because people always want to read about the bad and things that people are doing that are wrong or illegal and not the good things.
2006-09-06 06:45:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because there is more negative than positive in this world..........
2006-09-06 06:53:19 · answer #6 · answered by anuragmantry 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shouldn't you be in school??
2006-09-06 06:45:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋