THE ANIMAL'S SIDE OF RELIGION. - Page 2 - Political Forum

counterpointing · 12-31-2007, 07:01 PM

Try studying up on some other creatures on this planet that are doing quite well. How about ants!

Why Ants Rule the World | LiveScience
Why Ants Rule the World

"The combined heft of ants in the Brazilian Amazon is about four times greater than the combined mass of all of the mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, according to one survey."

presluc · 01-01-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Not all dogs came from the wolf, just most of the domesticated ones. I don't know what kind of point your trying to make here, you didn't prove me wrong about anything.

I gotta disagree with you here check it out, all canines are derived from a wolf a wolf is derived from a prehistoric animal.

presluc · 01-01-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

I'm not entirely sure of the point of this discussion, but I'll do my best.

Animals are extremely important to mankind, but it is probably equally important to note that the relationship isn't exactly a friendship. God made man to rule over the land and the animals of the earth. Even if you don't beleive the "God made" part, that still holds true and is pretty much irrefutable. The animals that thrive do so because we wish it. Cows and chickens thrive because we want them to. Polar bears and tigers will only be around because we want them to. Dogs, man's best friend, probably wouldn't exist in a tenth of their numbers without their intricate relationship with man, at the will of man.

I beleive the God made part, I beleive in God.
However you are quoteing from what God said in the Garden of Eden, before man was cast out.

presluc · 01-01-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Try studying up on some other creatures on this planet that are doing quite well. How about ants!

Why Ants Rule the World | LiveScience
Why Ants Rule the World

"The combined heft of ants in the Brazilian Amazon is about four times greater than the combined mass of all of the mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, according to one survey."

Ah, the insect world not my forte', but let's hope those ants don't get any bigger they can lift three times their weight now.
And I'm not sure but I think some ants can destroy a hunk of land worce as bad as a fire.

Wheeldog · 01-02-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Well, because I’m a naturalist, I don’t think humans could exist without animals ---evolution, food.

And I don’t think we’re all that much smarter, through maybe a little more lucky---good hands, good throat (for making words), good brain. I think canines have as much free will as man, and if there is a destiny for man, there too is a destiny for animals, the same destiny.

Humans are animals. We did not evolve "from" animals, because we never left its folds. The biological evidence is irrefutable. In the end, we are no more exempt from the laws of nature than are insects, reptiles and other mammals. Our technology temporarily gave us the means to exceed normal limits, but that only means that we will eventually face a much more difficult correction.

presluc · 01-03-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheeldog

Humans are animals. We did not evolve "from" animals, because we never left its folds. The biological evidence is irrefutable. In the end, we are no more exempt from the laws of nature than are insects, reptiles and other mammals. Our technology temporarily gave us the means to exceed normal limits, but that only means that we will eventually face a much more difficult correction.

A good post, what difficult correction do you think the human race is instore for it? care to guess?

Wheeldog · 01-04-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

A good post, what difficult correction do you think the human race is instore for it? care to guess?

Humans have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the earth. Our consumption of natural resources, both non-renewable and renewable, is unsustainable over the long term, particularly considering on-going population growth. All forms of life are constrained by the limits to which their habitat can can provide nourisment and other essentials. These limits are dynamic, but they cannot be exceeded indefinitely. Disease, starvation, unfavorable climate conditions, predation, etc. provide checks on populations. Some times a population happens to experience unusually favorable conditions that allow it to temporarily expand well beyond a normal range of carrying capacity. This may happen due to freedom from predation or disease or because of a brief spike in available food. When this occurs the inevitable population correction may become a catastrophic crash.

We have largely dodged the natural limits of carrying capacity by tapping into the enormous concentrations of energy found in oil and other fossil fuels. However, we are reaching the limits those resources can provide, even if they were inexhaustable. The fact that energy resources are tightening is even more ominous. Chances are that we will no longer be able to avoid nature's limits.

Wheeldog · 01-04-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

I'm not entirely sure of the point of this discussion, but I'll do my best.

Animals are extremely important to mankind, but it is probably equally important to note that the relationship isn't exactly a friendship. God made man to rule over the land and the animals of the earth. Even if you don't beleive the "God made" part, that still holds true and is pretty much irrefutable. The animals that thrive do so because we wish it. Cows and chickens thrive because we want them to. Polar bears and tigers will only be around because we want them to. Dogs, man's best friend, probably wouldn't exist in a tenth of their numbers without their intricate relationship with man, at the will of man.

I believe that you are exaggerating the place of humans in the natural scheme. Yes, we have shown an enormous capacity for destroying life, both animal and vegetation. However, that does not mean that we are somehow mini gods with an unquestionable right to dominate (destroy) anything that might get in our way. Cows and chickens are domisticated versions of wild animals that thrived before humans became dominant. Dogs, in the form of wild canines, were common in pre civilized regions. I have a hard time believing that God would want to identify herself with a specie that has shown itself to be wantonly destructive of what was once a world thriving with life.

presluc · 01-04-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheeldog

Humans have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the earth. Our consumption of natural resources, both non-renewable and renewable, is unsustainable over the long term, particularly considering on-going population growth. All forms of life are constrained by the limits to which their habitat can can provide nourisment and other essentials. These limits are dynamic, but they cannot be exceeded indefinitely. Disease, starvation, unfavorable climate conditions, predation, etc. provide checks on populations. Some times a population happens to experience unusually favorable conditions that allow it to temporarily expand well beyond a normal range of carrying capacity. This may happen due to freedom from predation or disease or because of a brief spike in available food. When this occurs the inevitable population correction may become a catastrophic crash.

We have largely dodged the natural limits of carrying capacity by tapping into the enormous concentrations of energy found in oil and other fossil fuels. However, we are reaching the limits those resources can provide, even if they were inexhaustable. The fact that energy resources are tightening is even more ominous. Chances are that we will no longer be able to avoid nature's limits.

I must say your post is very interesting.
I 'm going to go off topic here, but it's ok the guy that started this thread is a good freind of mine. lol
Do you think that the evolution of mankind will play a factor in this human consumption and overpopulation in the future?

hendx287 · 01-04-2008, 05:34 PM

you forgot to mention one animal human beings. they have done a lot to contribute to the world look at all of our pollution and the wars that we start. the human animals ability to rationalize has been catastrophic to the world. if only humans were as contributive to society as other animals...