(September 23, 2016 at 7:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 7:14 pm)Gemini Wrote: Emphasis mine. If they went extinct other consumers would fill the void. Try again, Huggy.

Uh no, that's not what it's saying.

It's flexible because it has a wide variety of prey it can consume...

Blah.

Quote:Designating an organism or species as "necessary" is very tricky.

Are humans necessary? Well, without us, a lot of livestock animals and crops that have been cultivated by humans for centuries would no longer be able to survive and propagate. Thus, we are necessary for their survival. Except we were the ones who domesticated them in the first place.

Let's look at a simpler example: wolves. Are wolves necessary? Well, in many areas, wolves help keep deer populations at bay. What would happen if there were no more wolves? Well, deer populations would increase exponentially and eat through swathes of foliage in their region, limiting or wiping out multiple plant species in that area.
Then what would happen? Well, with their food sources depleted, the deer would be forced to migrate to a different region with adequate sources of food. Given enough time, their original area would regrow with the same or different plants. The deer might even come back one day. In fact, back when most of the world had not been colonized by humans, many grazing animals did this-- they would graze in one region until it was depleted, move to a different region, and then come back again when the first region had regrown.

So were the wolves really necessary? They served a purpose, yes, but things would have ended up fine with or without them.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-anim...ural-world

Sheep and chickens would probably go extinct, without us around.

(September 23, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Expired Wrote: Here is an answer from an atheist Huggy, I don't care, I'm not scared, I don't give a fuck what your stupid fucking book says, I don't give a fucking fuck. so in short I'm not interested in your fucking shit.

Except I haven't mentioned the bible or anything religious for that matter.

Well, to be fair, Huggy, when I asked if you were going in an eschatological direction with all of this you kind of provided me with a somewhat positive answer.

(September 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm)InquiringMind Wrote: If life is meaningless, they why does being right or wrong matter?

Life is ultimately meaningless in the face of whatever eternity means, but is it meaningless to you? No? Then grab hold of that with both hands and make it your meaning.

(September 23, 2016 at 7:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: what goal post did I move?

From essential role to important role.

Not to mention that you provided a loaded interpretation of what the authors meant by important.

An ecosystem's health refers to its ability to generate new life in a cycle.  That this cycle doesn't necessarily include this or that organism doesn't mean the ecosystem isn't generating new life.  Ecosystems are defined by the life they contain.  It's mere semantics to say that an ecosystem is worse off for the absence of this or that species.  An important consumer isn't necessarily essential to an ecosystem.

*emphasis mine*


You're the one arguing semantics. I never used the term 'essential'.

(September 22, 2016 at 12:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't think you guys get what the OP is saying. He's not talking about what you personally feel is important, I believe he's talking about your place in the overall cosmos.

We recognize that in nature all creatures / organisms are important to their environment which is why we refer to it as a system, everything has its role to play in the overall scheme of things; everything except humans.

---

(September 23, 2016 at 7:29 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Except I haven't mentioned the bible or anything religious for that matter.

Well, to be fair, Huggy, when I asked if you were going in an eschatological direction with all of this you kind of provided me with a somewhat positive answer.

That would be YOU bringing it up, not me.

1. show me where I mention the bible

2. show me where I mention religion.

It seems as though the other shoe hasn't dropped. If life is meaningless, what's wrong with religion. It seems that embracing only those things that are true is meaningful to many people, as are issues of good faith and authenticity. But let's presume that there is nothing inherently wrong about embracing things that are not true. Is there anything wrong with believing in a religion on its own terms. Is believing in a religion an inherently bad thing? And what does it mean for something to be inherently bad if nothing means anything?

@Jörmungandr

So I haven't shifted any goalposts then? Glad we cleared that up...

---

(September 23, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 7:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Uh no, that's not what it's saying.

It's flexible because it has a wide variety of prey it can consume...

Blah.

Quote:Designating an organism or species as "necessary" is very tricky.

Are humans necessary? Well, without us, a lot of livestock animals and crops that have been cultivated by humans for centuries would no longer be able to survive and propagate. Thus, we are necessary for their survival. Except we were the ones who domesticated them in the first place.

Let's look at a simpler example: wolves. Are wolves necessary? Well, in many areas, wolves help keep deer populations at bay. What would happen if there were no more wolves? Well, deer populations would increase exponentially and eat through swathes of foliage in their region, limiting or wiping out multiple plant species in that area.
Then what would happen? Well, with their food sources depleted, the deer would be forced to migrate to a different region with adequate sources of food. Given enough time, their original area would regrow with the same or different plants. The deer might even come back one day. In fact, back when most of the world had not been colonized by humans, many grazing animals did this-- they would graze in one region until it was depleted, move to a different region, and then come back again when the first region had regrown.

So were the wolves really necessary? They served a purpose, yes, but things would have ended up fine with or without them.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-anim...ural-world

So your source is quora?

Talk about unsubstantiated, what you posted was total speculation...

(September 23, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Gemini Wrote: Blah.


https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-anim...ural-world

So your source is quora?

Talk about unsubstantiated, what you posted was total speculation...

Source derogation. First among tactics the irrational take to resist being persuaded. 

Did you have a substantive argument to make Huggy? Or are you done?

(September 23, 2016 at 7:53 pm)Gemini Wrote: Source derogation. First among tactics the irrational take to resist being persuaded. 

Did you have a substantive argument to make Huggy? Or are you done?

That's just it, you didn't post from any credible source.

Funny how when it come to theist's y'all require nothing less than peer reviewed information, but YOU'RE totally fine with quoting a software engineer from what is essentially a different forum.



Fine, if that's your standard, I don't want to hear you complain about a source... EVER!

(September 23, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Funny how when it come to theist's y'all require nothing less than peer reviewed information, but YOU'RE totally fine with quoting a software engineer from what is essentially a different forum.



Fine, if that's your standard, I don't want to hear you complain about a source... EVER!

Your source was balancing a pyramid on a point in the first place. It didn't establish what you claimed. Which is that every species is essential to the ecosystem, which you still haven't established.

If you have no rebuttal to the reply you've dismissed without argument, I'll assume you conceded. Fair's fair.