|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Email me a copy if you don't put it on your site, Moose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Licking the hand that feeds them. This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-28-2004 13:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
That's why we have real hard news like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to fill us in on reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024