Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 08:24 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  again, chippy, you can't remove parameters and only address "one aspect" of my argument without clearly defining that first. Otherwise, I argue off the premise that you are responding to the post in its entirety with the preamble assumptions.

I didin't fucking remove anything. You made the claim that ecological systems need regular natural disasters and I objected to that and I drew a comparison with an overpopulated society.

Quote:So - you didn't follow "serious debate rules" when you removed a premise without stating that.

"Serious debate rules" is a figure of speech there aren't literally a set of rules that are relevant to this context and furthermore I didn't remove anything from anything.

Quote:I said that global trade would cease if there was no more world hunger, no more disease, no more natural disasters, etc., which, it would if those parameters were granted.

Yes you did and that was not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Quote:So you were arguing yourself. I never said overpopulation causes the trading to stop.

If I was arguing with myself then so were you because I never said that overpopulation causes trading to stop.

Quote:You are a total dingleberry.

You are a presumptuous slag.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
[Image: tumblr_mky23oiTiz1rblqp8o1_250.gif]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-10-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 08:43 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 08:24 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  again, chippy, you can't remove parameters and only address "one aspect" of my argument without clearly defining that first. Otherwise, I argue off the premise that you are responding to the post in its entirety with the preamble assumptions.

I didin't fucking remove anything. You made the claim that ecological systems need regular natural disasters and I objected to that and I drew a comparison with an overpopulated society.

Quote:So - you didn't follow "serious debate rules" when you removed a premise without stating that.

"Serious debate rules" is a figure of speech there aren't literally a set of rules that are relevant to this context and furthermore I didn't remove anything from anything.

Quote:I said that global trade would cease if there was no more world hunger, no more disease, no more natural disasters, etc., which, it would if those parameters were granted.

Yes you did and that was not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Quote:So you were arguing yourself. I never said overpopulation causes the trading to stop.

If I was arguing with myself then so were you because I never said that overpopulation causes trading to stop.

Quote:You are a total dingleberry.

You are a presumptuous slag.

Sorry Chippy - then I do not understand what the fucking point of responding to any of my points were if you were going to make a completely unrelated tangential argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 09:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Sorry Chippy - then I do not understand what the fucking point of responding to any of my points were if you were going to make a completely unrelated tangential argument.

The point was that you are in error regarding your statement about ecological systems. I don't need to engage the entire argument in order to make that point. There is no rule that I must only challenge the central argument. I picked up on a peripheral point that I am quite confident is false. You presumed that I was addressing the central point and went to hell with that. I have no problem with what you concluded were the macroeconomic implication of that utopia. You assumed that I did and commenced your recriminations about my supposed ignnorance of basic economics. Tut-tut. The apparent opportunity was as seductive as it was illusory. Also, nature has no purposive intent so you shouldn't refer to it as if it does. That was my other point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 09:33 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Chippy - there are ecosystems that require fire to germinate.

take a gander

http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/what/ecology.html

Banana_zorro

So - in that case - you're wrong again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2013 09:47 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Quote:Forests (spelled with one R by the way), require a periodic clearing in order to flourish. Particularly for parts of the forest floor to flourish, the trees need to be cleared.
(30-10-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No they don't.


Banana_zorro

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...132735.htm

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7130.html



yes, They DO! Suck on that, Chippy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Where is super smart chippy to defend his position that some ecosystems don't require mass destruction?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 04:20 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 09:33 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Chippy - there are ecosystems that require fire to germinate.

take a gander

http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/what/ecology.html

Banana_zorro

So - in that case - you're wrong again.

I live in a part of the world where bushfires are a common occurrence. I am well aware of fire dependent species of plant life. Clearly where a species is fire dependent a bush fire does not represent an envoronmental shock, it is not disatrous, it is a necessary reproductive factor. Also, the animal life in fire dependent forests is behaviourally adapted to the frequent fires so they don't perish and their reproductive behaviour is unaltered.

A natural disaster is a fire in a non-fire dependent forrest and no non-dependent forrest needs this sort of mass death that you implied was necessary. In a non-dependent forrest both plant and animal life perishes and hence fail to reproduce. If a fire started in one of Australia's old growth forests it would be acomplete and umitigated disaster and no plant or animal species would benefit from it.

I am correct again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 09:38 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...132735.htm

Those are fire-dependent eco-systems. The effect of an increase in the frequency of fires in fire-dependent eco-systems is irrelevant to the point of whether non-fire-dependent eco-systems benenfir from fires.

Quote:http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7130.html

That book is proposing an idea that breaks from the consensus view. I am expressing the consensus view of ecologists, I am appealing to the "traditional, equilibirum paradigm".

Reice argues, in terms refreshingly nontechnical yet scientifically sound, that the traditional, equilibrium paradigm--according to which ''stability'' produces healthier ecosystems than does sudden, sweeping change--is fundamentally flawed. He describes a radically different model of how nature operates, one that many ecologists and population biologists have come to understand in recent years: a concept founded on the premise that disturbances help create and maintain the biodiversity that benefits both the ecosystem and ourselves. (emphasis added)

Whether Reice's thesis has any merit I don't know but I do know that it is not the consensus view of most ecologists.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:19 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 06:41 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Where is super smart chippy to defend his position that some ecosystems don't require mass destruction?

I live in a different hemisphere you ethnocentric slag. I'm not going to stay awake all night arguing with a moron.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: