Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 26 (75085)
12-25-2003 9:59 AM


Does the literalist view that mankind has total dominion over all other animals and that all the plants and animals were placed on the planet for mankind's use (with only specific limitations per the laws of Moses) lead to, or justify, an unreplenishable level of natural resource use?
Do the creationist science theories that all mineral resources were created or deposited in less than five millennia, and that vegetative resources were planted in situ with no evolution of a worldwide, integrated ecosystem, coupled with the view of mankind's god-given resource use rights pose a real threat to sustainable natural ecology?
Does the creationist/literalist belief that the world in its current physical state soon will cease to exist contribute to, or possibly spur, continued rapid depletion of unreplenishable habitat and resources.
Do the literalist natural world views and creationist "science" theories constitute radical propaganda that foster ecological ruin?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-25-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-25-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 10:56 AM Abshalom has replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 11:22 AM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-25-2003 12:10 PM Abshalom has replied
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2004 10:15 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 26 (75087)
12-25-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Abshalom
12-25-2003 9:59 AM


Does the creationist/literalist belief that the world in its current physical state soon will cease to exist contribute to continued rapid depletion of unreplenishable habitat and resourses, or in and of itself justify or constitute ecological terrorism?
No, because Biblical literalists look for a millenium of a wornderful world before the end of the world and solar system by fire, a millenium during which there will so much plush vegetation that even carnivorus animals will be vegetarians as it likely was before the flood.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 9:59 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 11:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 12-26-2003 3:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 26 (75088)
12-25-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
12-25-2003 10:56 AM


Note: Buzsaw's quote of my original question is correctly pasted. At about the same time as Buz was constructing and posting his reply, I edited my question to remove the word "terrorism" because, upon re-reading my question, it appeared unduly alarmist and a little politically incorrect considering the time of year and our current political climate.
Peace and much good fortune to everyone in the New Year

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 10:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 26 (75091)
12-25-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Abshalom
12-25-2003 9:59 AM


What me worry?
Another concern is that anyone who thinks the world is going to end "soon" probably isn't worried enough about what our children's and grandchildren's generations are going to have to live with as a result of our foolishness.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 9:59 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 26 (75095)
12-25-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Abshalom
12-25-2003 9:59 AM


Truncated topic title I presume?
Not sure, but I think the system still truncates titles (at least sometimes) when (")'s are used in the title. (')'s seem to be OK.
Tell me what you wanted that title to be, and I'll get it fixed.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 9:59 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 5:19 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 26 (75134)
12-25-2003 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
12-25-2003 12:10 PM


Re: Truncated topic title I presume?
Dear Adminnemooseus:
"Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?" or something along that line will do. You may edit as you wish. What I am trying to do is get a discussion going relative to the cavalier attitudes I sometimes encounter when arguing with literalists about the need to incorporate long-term resource management practices to protect wetlands, rainforests, coral reefs, and tital pools.
{Done - As per the suggestion you pulled from the tital pool - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-25-2003 12:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 12-28-2004 1:47 PM Abshalom has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 26 (75180)
12-26-2003 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
12-25-2003 10:56 AM


No, because Biblical literalists look for a millenium of a wornderful world before the end of the world and solar system by fire
They've been wrong before. Isn't it worth hegding our bets in regards to the ecology that keeps us alive?
Jesus taught stewardship and moderation. He fed the thousands with fish and loaves, not an unsustainable banquet. Gluttony is a deadly sin, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 10:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 26 (171172)
12-23-2004 3:58 PM


Bump
At this point I would be inclined to state the question as "Does Fundimentalist Christian and/or Neoconservative Republican Beliefs Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?". Or more generally, a "don't worry about the future" attitude.
I, of course, think YES.
I have a Bill Moyers speech that a friend e-mailed me, that I think is very profound in this (and other?) area(s). I have been tempted to post this speech as a new topic, but in the guidelines of the forum, such a thing doesn't seem proper. Maybe I'll post it at my personal website, and plug a link into this topic.
Moose
{Edited to change ID}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2004 03:59 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 12-23-2004 4:38 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 26 (171184)
12-23-2004 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
12-23-2004 3:58 PM


Re: Bump
Email me a copy if you don't put it on your site, Moose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-23-2004 3:58 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-23-2004 5:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 10 of 26 (171188)
12-23-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
12-23-2004 4:38 PM


Building a Better Apocalypse
http://www.lakenet.com/...yers%20-%20BATTLEFIELD%20EARTH.htm
I have no other source information, other than what was included in the above cited.
Yes, a bare link. I really at the moment have little more to say, other than maybe "Bill Moyers for President!".
OK, I guess I do have a bit more to say:
A while back another friend was discussing things Bill Moyers/PBS. He was vastly more up on such things than I. Anyway, he told of Moyers showing vidio/audio clips of various political speakers. After the clips, Moyers would come back and say "And that was a lie".
Where were the U.S. big four networks, during this past election? There were so many opportunities for commentarists to show clips of various speechs/political advertisements, come back and say something like "That was misinformation", and then say why. Political ads seem to be except from truth in advertising laws.
Moose
{Edited to change subtitle}
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2004 08:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 12-23-2004 4:38 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 1:16 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 12 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2004 1:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 26 (171904)
12-28-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
12-23-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Building a Better Apocalypse
quote:
Where were the U.S. big four networks, during this past election?
Licking the hand that feeds them.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-28-2004 13:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-23-2004 5:00 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 26 (171911)
12-28-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
12-23-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Building a Better Apocalypse
That's why we have real hard news like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to fill us in on reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-23-2004 5:00 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 26 (171913)
12-28-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Abshalom
12-25-2003 5:19 PM


If you can ever get the topic going - and somehow avoid the apparently inexorable pull to making this another conservative-bashing thread (not that I've got a problem with conservative-bashing, I just think this topic is extremely important) - I would like to hear your rationale and/or evidence that there's a linkage between the fundies and ecological disruption (in whatever form). For reference, I would LOVE to be able to find such a linkage. However, I'm not sure there's support for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 5:19 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2004 2:20 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 26 (171920)
12-28-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Quetzal
12-28-2004 1:47 PM


Getting Topic Started
Quetzal: I think my original intent with this back about a year ago was based on a heated argument I had with a fundie regarding unsustained use of both natural resources and domesticated livestock. His argument was based solely on his take that in Genesis Chapters One and Two, God gave Man unbridled reign over all other animals and vegetation to use as Man would forever.
My argument is that this fundie outlook prevails today worldwide wherever corporate greed is driven by the cavalier attitude that we can take, take, take regardless of the adverse effects our taking has on the Earth's environment. In fact, the only secular argument I encounter is "that it's cheaper" to do it the way it's being done. Like using fossil fuels that release previously naturally bound carbon into our atmosphere as gas.
But now you ask me to provide "evidence" that this fundie mentality regarding man's providence over animals and vegetation has led to ecological disruption ... well, I will have to do some research to provide links between specific resource-raping activities, the corporate entities responsible, and the particular fundementalist attitutes that corporate bosses may possess.
Before I respond, let me say, it's been a year since I initiated this thread. I had a very serious heart surgery last spring and stop posting. I've forgotten a lot of stuff I was into back then. And until today, I was not able to get my password to activate. So, you may not see much of me ... we'll see.
Regards, Abshalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 12-28-2004 1:47 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 12-28-2004 4:37 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 26 (171951)
12-28-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Abshalom
12-28-2004 2:20 PM


Re: Getting Topic Started
Well, take your time. I need to get back to my computer and concurrently my reference materials before I can get too deep into this topic. My position is that H. sapiens in general has had an exceptionally negative impact on both regional and global environments over the last 30-40,000 years or so. I am one of those that believes we are seeing a new mass extinction event whose end result is impossible to predict, effected primarily by human activity. In addition, over the last few hundred years, human-caused extinctions have increased exponentially. What I DON'T see is any real connection between religion - whether fundy Christian/Moslem or mainstream - and such activity. Human greed, human ignorance, and human need are the driving forces.
It could be a very interesting discussion. I hope you'll find time to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2004 2:20 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024