(December 30, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Lek Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 6:18 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: If you say so. Yet, there are none in my domicile and it does nothing harmful to my personal ecosystem.

Try them roasted with some spicy seasoning.

I think I'll just take your word for it.

I know some people who swear by them.

No, wait...

Swear at them. Sorry.

(December 30, 2016 at 7:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Lek Wrote: Yeah.  It works if you eliminate a species over a million years, but every organism has it's role in the ecosystem.  There is a purpose for cockroaches.

There is a niche for cockroaches. Anything else is human ego projection.

Of course, having a niche in an ecosystem and being an indispensable part of that ecosystem are two entirely different things.

To: Brian37, Rhondazvous and Mister Agenda, none off you have answered my question about your precious evolution. Why did man who is suppose to be evolved from previous species get left out of the instinct to protect the environment by not over using the resources of this planet. All other species has this instinct and use it daily.

GC

---

(December 30, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Wait for it, 

"It's a test"
"It's punishment"
"God works in mysterious ways"
"God doesn't  have to explain himself to you"

Que the circular reasoning of an old unscientific book by quoting it "It says so because it says so".

See what they do, Brian? They write a book that says god created the grass and the trees (third day) before he created the sun and the moon (fourth day) then thousands of years later when we discover that ain't how it works, they say well it's not meant to be a scientific textbook.

Ever wonder where the phrase "trying to have your cake and eat it too" comes from? I think I know.

I know of no Christian that claims the Bible's a science book and you do not either. We have only claimed that God told us that He did create and the order He accomplished it.

GC

---

(December 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Mr Greene Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 4:37 pm)Lek Wrote: Usually, if you eliminate one organism from an ecosystem, the whole system is thrown out of balance.

False, the effects of eliminating a population of organisms is proportional to their role within a given ecosystem. This is determined through ecosystem modelling though the I suspect the equations involved would be somewhat beyond your capabilities.

Let's remove all plankton and let's see what happens.

GC

---

(December 30, 2016 at 9:05 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 7:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: There is a niche for cockroaches. Anything else is human ego projection.

Of course, having a niche in an ecosystem and being an indispensable part of that ecosystem are two entirely different things.

Stop just stop the word play you know what was meant.

GC

(December 31, 2016 at 12:09 am)Godschild Wrote: To: Brian37, Rhondazvous and Mister Agenda, none off you have answered my question about your precious evolution. Why did man who is suppose to be evolved from previous species get left out of the instinct to protect the environment by not over using the resources of this planet. All other species has this instinct and use it daily.

GC

They are part of that ecosystem and thus their population is directly determined by it resulting in boom and crash population numbers.

Quote:

(December 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: False, the effects of eliminating a population of organisms is proportional to their role within a given ecosystem. This is determined through ecosystem modelling though the I suspect the equations involved would be somewhat beyond your capabilities.

Let's remove all plankton and let's see what happens

GC

Plankton is a KEY-SPECIES and thus has a huge propotional effect.
Obviously you have no idea of what this means so are unable to identify key species or quantify the effects.

(December 31, 2016 at 12:09 am)Godschild Wrote: To: Brian37, Rhondazvous and Mister Agenda, none off you have answered my question about your precious evolution. Why did man who is suppose to be evolved from previous species get left out of the instinct to protect the environment by not over using the resources of this planet. All other species has this instinct and use it daily.

It's not that any species has the instinct to keep itself in check for the sake of the environment. They simply do not have the mechanisms to change the environment on the level that humans can. More critically, very few have the mechanisms to build up resources like food and firewood. When animal populations boom, they eventually outstrip their resources and then starvation, disease, and aggression whittle their numbers back to a manageable level. But until they reach that tipping point they will consume as much as they can as fast as they can. Mice can create dense swarms just like locusts can, and they will consume acres of food that other animals need.

Nature is always ever in a very precarious balance, as archeological evidence shows us. Species go extinct constantly --literally every year there are numerous extinctions on the planet. Some of this is due to the direct or indirect involvement of people, and a lot of it is a case of species unable to cope with pressures from the climate, environment, or competing species. They don't have an instinct to protect the environment-- they are evolved to exploit it. Humans happen to be so effective at it that we're exploiting ourselves towards a cliff. We're not an exception to evolution, we're just a particularly amazing and dangerous example of it.

(December 30, 2016 at 4:33 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Lek Wrote:Do you believe that cockroaches have no purpose?

Like everything else, their purpose is to survive. If they were designed with humans in mind, they would be less 'pesty' and more things would think they taste like pork chops.

Our human language is a double edge sword. Scientific language is quite different in context than when a myth lover hears the same word.

"Purpose" is such a loaded word, just like "theory" is heard by theists to mean "mere guess". 

Life in terms of evolution yes, the "goal" is to continue. But in cosmic time in terms of 13.8 billion years, no. 

It unnerves humans to think of their species as pointless but that is what all this is, pointless. Just like while you can explain why tornados happen, the entire universe I like to think of as a giant un-caused non-cognitive weather pattern. We are merely a tiny and temporary outcome in that pattern. A mere blip.

An amazing blip sure, but not an important blip to the universe itself.

Our meaning as a species is here and now and trying to manage and extend our finite ride. It is hardly comforting, but if more humans would understand this and accept it, the world really could focus on progress and have less conflict. Ultimately with all our differences we'd like to think we are different, but we are not.

(December 31, 2016 at 4:46 am)Mr Greene Wrote:

(December 31, 2016 at 12:09 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

To: Brian37, Rhondazvous and Mister Agenda, none off you have answered my question about your precious evolution. Why did man who is suppose to be evolved from previous species get left out of the instinct to protect the environment by not over using the resources of this planet. All other species has this instinct and use it daily.

GC

---

They are part of that ecosystem and thus their population is directly determined by it resulting in boom and crash population numbers.

Quote:Let's remove all plankton and let's see what happens

GC

Plankton is a KEY-SPECIES and thus has a huge propotional effect.
Obviously you have no idea of what this means so are unable to identify key species or quantify the effects.

The statement was no one species could be removed and effect the whole of the earth, the effect of removing plankton would result in a world wide catastrophe.

Abloom in population of a species is cause by an over abundance of food, the resulting boom in a species always benefits one or more species. The only boom that results in the harm of nearly all species is man, our over population of this planet is the root cause of all our problems. Wars and disease were our balancing forces not our brains. We have with great effect slowed disease to a point it rarely effects any population and no major wars in the last 70 years has allowed extreme population grow. I am no advocating for war its horrible thing, however with our brains we should be able to find solutions to uncontrolled population growth.
There is one war that has managed to keep population grow from getting the upper hand, THE WAR ON THE UNBORN. But this is flat out murder of the indefensible and totally unacceptable. The only reason it hasn't keep the world population in control third world countries use it far less than those we consider advanced were it has had effects on population growth. The reason the population grows in the more advanced countries is emigration from the over populated third world countries. Yes legalized murder in our so called advanced countries has resulted in a more or less stagnant population growth among their citizens.

GC

(December 31, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(December 31, 2016 at 4:46 am)Mr Greene Wrote: They are part of that ecosystem and thus their population is directly determined by it resulting in boom and crash population numbers.
Plankton is a KEY-SPECIES and thus has a huge propotional effect.
Obviously you have no idea of what this means so are unable to identify key species or quantify the effects.

The statement was no one species could be removed and effect the whole of the earth, the effect of removing plankton would result in a world wide catastrophe.

Abloom in population of a species is cause by an over abundance of food, the resulting boom in a species always benefits one or more species. The only boom that results in the harm of nearly all species is man, our over population of this planet is the root cause of all our problems. Wars and disease were our balancing forces not our brains. We have with great effect slowed disease to a point it rarely effects any population and no major wars in the last 70 years has allowed extreme population grow. I am no advocating for war its horrible thing, however with our brains we should be able to find solutions to uncontrolled population growth.
There is one war that has managed to keep population grow from getting the upper hand, THE WAR ON THE UNBORN. But this is flat out murder of the indefensible and totally unacceptable. The only reason it hasn't keep the world population in control third world countries use it far less than those we consider advanced were it has had effects on population growth. The reason the population grows in the more advanced countries is emigration from the over populated third world countries. Yes legalized murder in our so called advanced countries has resulted in a more or less stagnant population growth among their citizens.

GC

Once again, and you keep doing this. You cherry pick the parts of science you like, but ignore ALL facts of science found and confirmed are true, regardless of you not liking them. AND that is also on top of you MULTIPLE TIMES already admitting your holy book IS NOT a science textbook.

GC do yourself a favor, argue science with Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists not just atheists. Do that enough and you will see that there are plenty of humans of all religions who will either try to debunk science to point to their religion, or try to co opt science to point you to their religion.

The problem for ALL religions is that science is not a religion, and does not prop up any religion, not yours or any. It is a completely neutral TOOL as a method, a process. Scientific method DOES NOT prop up the bible or Koran or Torah or Talmud or Hindu Vedas. 

It really will not kill you to know and accept your book and your religion merely is something someone sold you. Join the Dark Side Luke, we have cookies.

GC

First of all, I know of no animal that has an instinct for protecting the environment. I honestly don’t know where you get such an idea. Other animals don’t burn fossil fuel or emit smoke into the environment because they have not evolved to the point that they can work with tools or engage in advanced industry. Not being able to harm the environment is a far cry from protecting the environment.

Second of all, I did not say Christians say the bible is a science textbook. The point that I did raise is that science has proven that the biblical creation story is not true. How can you think you will find divine favor by believing things you know are not true?

BTW, you might want to pick up these strawmen you’ve created in case you want to use them again. They’re both still quite serviceable.