And you're violating our fire code. We could lose our insurance.

(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

Which would imply any species from any ecosystem,  the fact that you selected a key-species for your example strongly implies endemic dishonesty in your methodology. Please quantify the effects of the removal of your selection step by step to demonstrate your integrity.

Obviously you have no idea what the effect of a boom in population numbers actually means for example a boom in Locust numbers.
Homo sapiens in common with every other species on the planet expands its population to the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. The problem with humanity is that globalisation has expanded our capability to exploit the entire biosphere.

(December 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: 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.

Its apparent you skimmed over the details in my post, either that or you just ignored them. The animals preserve the environment by not over using the resource they need to live.

GC

Except that they do, then they starve and their population crashes allowing the resources to recover.

(January 1, 2017 at 6:59 am)Godschild Wrote:

(December 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: 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.

Its apparent you skimmed over the details in my post, either that or you just ignored them. The animals preserve the environment by not over using the resource they need to live.

GC

I did not ignore your point. Your point is that the animals preserve the environment and this somehow proves evolution is wrong. My point is that your point is a non sequitur.

(January 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 6:59 am)Godschild Wrote: Its apparent you skimmed over the details in my post, either that or you just ignored them. The animals preserve the environment by not over using the resource they need to live.

GC

I did not ignore your point. Your point is that the animals preserve the environment and this somehow proves evolution is wrong. My point is that your point is a non sequitur.

I explained clearly in other post on this thread how some animals preserve their environment which in turn helps the rest of the enviroment.

GC

(January 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I did not ignore your point. Your point is  that the animals preserve the environment and this somehow proves evolution is wrong.  My point is that your point is a non sequitur.

I explained clearly in other post on this thread how some animals preserve their environment which in turn helps the rest of the enviroment.

GC

...Wait, so this somehow disproves evolution? Was I standing too close to someone who was smoking something?

(January 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I did not ignore your point. Your point is  that the animals preserve the environment and this somehow proves evolution is wrong.  My point is that your point is a non sequitur.

I explained clearly in other post on this thread how some animals preserve their environment which in turn helps the rest of the enviroment.

GC

I didn't say your explanations were not clear. They are perfectly clear. I said your conclusion does not follow (non sequitur). The two plus two part is clear. It's when you say it equals five that I have to object.

---

(January 1, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: I explained clearly in other post on this thread how some animals preserve their environment which in turn helps the rest of the enviroment.

GC

...Wait, so this somehow disproves evolution? Was I standing too close to someone who was smoking something?

Aw, you've met one of my favorites, good ol' GC. And now you have entered the Twilight Zone. Give him a brush and he'll paint himself into a corner where he has nothing legitimate to say. Then he'll show his unassailable repertoire of classic fallacies,

(January 1, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: I explained clearly in other post on this thread how some animals preserve their environment which in turn helps the rest of the enviroment.

GC

I didn't say your explanations were not clear. They are perfectly clear.  I said your conclusion does not follow (non sequitur).  The two plus two part is clear. It's when you say it equals five that I have to object.

---

(January 1, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Astonished Wrote: ...Wait, so this somehow disproves evolution? Was I standing too close to someone who was smoking something?

Aw, you've met one of my favorites, good ol' GC. And now you have entered the Twilight Zone. Give him a brush and he'll paint himself into a corner where he has nothing legitimate to say. Then he'll show his unassailable repertoire of classic fallacies,

Ah, so it's not meant to be taken seriously. I was kind of worried there for a second. Not worried that evolution was false, but that something in my environment was impairing me. Good to know it was just a misunderstanding.

(January 1, 2017 at 9:02 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I didn't say your explanations were not clear. They are perfectly clear.  I said your conclusion does not follow (non sequitur).  The two plus two part is clear. It's when you say it equals five that I have to object.

---

Aw, you've met one of my favorites, good ol' GC. And now you have entered the Twilight Zone. Give him a brush and he'll paint himself into a corner where he has nothing legitimate to say. Then he'll show his unassailable repertoire of classic fallacies,

Ah, so it's not meant to be taken seriously. I was kind of worried there for a second. Not worried that evolution was false, but that something in my environment was impairing me. Good to know it was just a misunderstanding.

Talking to him will make you wonder if you've got a contact. But for now I am going to bed. signing off how. Good night. Happy New Year and welcome to AF.