Bible prophecy coming true - A One World Religious/ Economic/ Government System

[Final-Fan]

sapphi_snake said:

Final-Fan said:

1. If you'd read that section, you'd see the objection is that it's "clearly not animal intelligence".  That in no way contradicts the idea that it is a lower form of intelligence, perhaps as low as "bacterial intelligence" or perhaps in between.  Some people don't like using the word "intelligence" to refer to such low levels of intelligence, but that's a matter of semantics. 

"Also, it's a fact that animals located on the same level are of the same importance (that's why they're on the same level after all), and since plants are all located on the same level (the foundation), then you can easily compare all plants with humans."

2. This ... I don't even have the words to describe the magnitude of that fallacy.  Why do you think having equal importance lets all of them gang up? 

3. Another thing:  since your "all plants vs. human species" depends on putting humans on a level all by themselves, does that not in itself prove Kasz's point about how special they are? 

4. Look, my bringing in domesticated plants/animals/etc. was purely to disprove your claim that no species depend on us, which is clearly false.  You are now claiming that because corn is not a predator of humans it does not depend on us for its current "market penetration" of the world's biosphere, which is frankly silly.  Retreating to a pure analysis of the hierarchical food chain ignores the fact that our intelligence has changed the game of by what means a species may depend on another.  In that way you are actually supporting the idea that humans are uniquely special.  (I should point out that symbiotic relationships between species aren't new, which your claim also ignores.  That is another way a species can depend on another without being its predator, and in fact can be lower on the food chain.) 

5. "humans really are quite unecessary to Earth's ecosyste"  How does "more necessary to the ecosystem" equate to "more special"? 

1. If you would've read your own article, you would've known that it's debatable whetherplants have actual "intelligence", or whether it is simply adaptation.

2. You can compare different levels of the food chain with eachother.

3. In a sense it might (at some point there has always been 1 species at the top of the food chain, so humans are just 1 in a long line), but my main objection was regarding his claims that humans are more "valuable" than other lifeforms.

4. Animals of different species cooperating with eachother is something quite common. It has nothing to do with the food chain however, as in the food chain when I say "depends on eachother" it means "one eats the other in order to survive" - that's what the food chain is about. Corn is a plant, it does not eat humans. Plants don'tusualyl depend on other lifeforms to survive, because they don't need organic material to survive (that's why they're considered strictly producers). Plus, humans and corn do not cooperate, because humans grow corn to eat it, and I'm sure corn (if it had intelligence) would dislike this fact (same for other products of human agriculture and animal raising). Cooperation is like that bird who cleans crocodiles mouths, and the crocodiles don't eat them.

5. It eauqals to more "valuable".

1.  It depends on how you define intelligence. 

2.  Not all plants are at the same part of the food chain. 

3.  No, no other apex predator is comparable to humans because of our intelligence.  We are the most valuable species because of that special trait, which only we have.  You have admitted how special we are by entertaining the idea that humanity is so special it should be counted as a kingdom separate from other animals. 

4.  You are artificially restricting the discussion.  The whole point of your bringing up the food chain was AFAIK to say that we would die without plants because we feed on them (or on animals that do), but plants do not feed on us and therefore they would live.  That is arguable in itself, but where you really fail is to claim that I can't use corn as an example of plants that would die out or be devastated if we were gone as a counterpoint to what you said.  Unless I completely missed something, you are really being ridiculous to deny that my point is relevant to your point.