See other Activism Articles
Title: Sarah Palin Champions Barbaric Aerial Hunting of Wolves
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ
Published: Sep 3, 2008
Author: defendersactionfund
Post Date: 2009-02-03 17:56:11 by FormerLurker
Keywords: Barbaric, Animal slaughter, Compassionate Conservatism, Sarah Palin
Views: 8614
Comments: 460
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-213) not displayed.
.
.
.
#214. To: FormerLurker (#212)
Oooo big assumption. You didn't read the site did you. Knew you wouldn't.
Oh and BTW, that link you posted does NOT dispute any of the physiological evidence that I mentioned, it simply beats down straw men.
It's obvious that YOU didn't, or if you did, you thought it said something that it doesn't.
New stars, planets, and life on those worlds. In fact, the very fact that life is constantly recreating itself here on THIS planet each second of each day IS Creation in Progress.
How about a pro-vegetarian site that makes the claim that humans are omnivores? Humans are Omnivores Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore- insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. Omnivorism The Great Apes Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). Again more at the link.
BTW, I never said that God did not create all that exists, I simply said it did not happen the way ancient desert dwellers described it. Can't you see that Nature IS the process of Creation? Can't you understand that evolution is but a tiny piece of that Creation, and that Creation itself goes well beyond that?
LOL!! The correct amount of thinning at the correct time prevents this. It's called game management, a centuries old technique that was diligently practiced by many older civilizations as if their very lives depended on getting it right.
In fact, the very fact that life is constantly recreating itself here on THIS planet each second of each day IS Creation in Progress. I'm sorry to hear of your delusional state. Hope you get help.
God is always good!
This article was shamelessly published in the May/June 1991 edition of the Vegetarian Journal JM> There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. JM> One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater. JM> Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics. JM> Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. JM> Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat- eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. JM> The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). JM> All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice. JM> There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. JM> The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. JM> Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). JM> Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants. JM> In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations. JM> There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. JM> For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat- free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. This article was originally published in the May/June 1991 edition of the Vegetarian Journal, published by: You really should face the mirror when you speak those words.
Let's put it this way. I would not believe in God before I would buy the story of macro evolution. If believing in God required believing in macro evolution then I would be an atheist.
God is always good!
BTW, do you not see the gestation of a baby, be it human, dog, or sheep, and the birth of that baby as the creation of new life? Do you not see the seed of a plant growing into a new plant itself as the work of creation? Or do you think the stork delivers those babies straight from heaven, and the farmers buy their crops at the supermarket?
Oh, and why is that?
Sure it did. Interaction of evolutionary selection pressures on the human oral system (flowchart) Overview of gut (digestive system) morphology in primates and humans Quantitative analysis of gut morphology in primates and humans On the term "omnivore," and misuse of quotes Here is the main link. A lot to read there.
In a brief glimse, it's highly apparent the author cherry picks his "sources" and does not quote much of anything, but takes an image here and there that doesn't prove a thing and writes a paragraph or two with no real proof of what he's claiming.
Genesis says God created all things in six days and then he rested on the seventh. He didn't need evolution to do that. If macro evolution were ever proven to be true, then I could longer believe in God. Macro evolution can't be proved though, of that I am sure.
God is always good!
The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D. Humans are most often described as “omnivores.” This classification is based on the “observation” that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, “observation” is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most “natural” diet for humans. While most humans are clearly “behavioral” omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods. A better and more objective technique is to look at human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are anatomically and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular kinds of diets. (It is common practice when examining fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features to deduce the animal's probable diet.) Therefore, we can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores (plant-eaters) and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological features are associated with each kind of diet. Then we can look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which group we belong. Oral Cavity Carnivores have a wide mouth opening in relation to their head size. This confers obvious advantages in developing the forces used in seizing, killing and dismembering prey. Facial musculature is reduced since these muscles would hinder a wide gape, and play no part in the animal's preparation of food for swallowing. In all mammalian carnivores, the jaw joint is a simple hinge joint lying in the same plane as the teeth. This type of joint is extremely stable and acts as the pivot point for the “lever arms” formed by the upper and lower jaws. The primary muscle used for operating the jaw in carnivores is the temporalis muscle. This muscle is so massive in carnivores that it accounts for most of the bulk of the sides of the head (when you pet a dog, you are petting its temporalis muscles). The “angle” of the mandible (lower jaw) in carnivores is small. This is because the muscles (masseter and pterygoids) that attach there are of minor importance in these animals. The lower jaw of carnivores cannot move forward, and has very limited side-to-side motion. When the jaw of a carnivore closes, the blade-shaped cheek molars slide past each other to give a slicing motion that is very effective for shearing meat off bone. The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short, pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding. The canines are greatly elongated and dagger-like for stabbing, tearing and killing prey. The molars (carnassials) are flattened and triangular with jagged edges such that they function like serrated-edged blades. Because of the hinge-type joint, when a carnivore closes its jaw, the cheek teeth come together in a back-to-front fashion giving a smooth cutting motion like the blades on a pair of shears. The saliva of carnivorous animals does not contain digestive enzymes. When eating, a mammalian carnivore gorges itself rapidly and does not chew its food. Since proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes cannot be liberated in the mouth due to the danger of autodigestion (damaging the oral cavity), carnivores do not need to mix their food with saliva; they simply bite off huge chunks of meat and swallow them whole. According to evolutionary theory, the anatomical features consistent with an herbivorous diet represent a more recently derived condition than that of the carnivore. Herbivorous mammals have well- developed facial musculature, fleshy lips, a relatively small opening into the oral cavity and a thickened, muscular tongue. The lips aid in the movement of food into the mouth and, along with the facial (cheek) musculature and tongue, assist in the chewing of food. In herbivores, the jaw joint has moved to position above the plane of the teeth. Although this type of joint is less stable than the hinge-type joint of the carnivore, it is much more mobile and allows the complex jaw motions needed when chewing plant foods. Additionally, this type of jaw joint allows the upper and lower cheek teeth to come together along the length of the jaw more or less at once when the mouth is closed in order to form grinding platforms. (This type of joint is so important to a plant-eating animal, that it is believed to have evolved at least 15 different times in various plant- eating mammalian species.) The angle of the mandible has expanded to provide a broad area of attachment for the well-developed masseter and pterygoid muscles (these are the major muscles of chewing in plant-eating animals). The temporalis muscle is small and of minor importance. The masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling- like arrangement and swing the jaw from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing. The dentition of herbivores is quite varied depending on the kind of vegetation a particular species is adapted to eat. Although these animals differ in the types and numbers of teeth they posses, the various kinds of teeth when present, share common structural features. The incisors are broad, flattened and spade-like. Canines may be small as in horses, prominent as in hippos, pigs and some primates (these are thought to be used for defense) or absent altogether. The molars, in general, are squared and flattened on top to provide a grinding surface. The molars cannot vertically slide past one another in a shearing/slicing motion, but they do horizontally slide across one another to crush and grind. The surface features of the molars vary depending on the type of plant material the animal eats. The teeth of herbivorous animals are closely grouped so that the incisors form an efficient cropping/biting mechanism, and the upper and lower molars form extended platforms for crushing and grinding. The “walled-in” oral cavity has a lot of potential space that is realized during eating. These animals carefully and methodically chew their food, pushing the food back and forth into the grinding teeth with the tongue and cheek muscles. This thorough process is necessary to mechanically disrupt plant cell walls in order to release the digestible intracellular contents and ensure thorough mixing of this material with their saliva. This is important because the saliva of plant-eating mammals often contains carbohydrate-digesting enzymes which begin breaking down food molecules while the food is still in the mouth. Stomach and Small Intestine Striking differences between carnivores and herbivores are seen in these organs. Carnivores have a capacious simple (single- chambered) stomach. The stomach volume of a carnivore represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. Because meat is relatively easily digested, their small intestines (where absorption of food molecules takes place) are short&151;about three to five or six times the body length. Since these animals average a kill only about once a week, a large stomach volume is advantageous because it allows the animals to quickly gorge themselves when eating, taking in as much meat as possible at one time which can then be digested later while resting. Additionally, the ability of the carnivore stomach to secrete hydrochloric acid is exceptional. Carnivores are able to keep their gastric pH down around 1-2 even with food present. This is necessary to facilitate protein breakdown and to kill the abundant dangerous bacteria often found in decaying flesh foods. Because of the relative difficulty with which various kinds of plant foods are broken down (due to large amounts of indigestible fibers), herbivores have significantly longer and in some cases, far more elaborate guts than carnivores. Herbivorous animals that consume plants containing a high proportion of cellulose must “ferment” (digest by bacterial enzyme action) their food to obtain the nutrient value. They are classified as either “ruminants” (foregut fermenters) or hindgut fermenters. The ruminants are the plant-eating animals with the celebrated multiple-chambered stomachs. Herbivorous animals that eat a diet of relatively soft vegetation do not need a multiple-chambered stomach. They typically have a simple stomach, and a long small intestine. These animals ferment the difficult-to-digest fibrous portions of their diets in their hindguts (colons). Many of these herbivores increase the sophistication and efficiency of their GI tracts by including carbohydrate-digesting enzymes in their saliva. A multiple-stomach fermentation process in an animal which consumed a diet of soft, pulpy vegetation would be energetically wasteful. Nutrients and calories would be consumed by the fermenting bacteria and protozoa before reaching the small intestine for absorption. The small intestine of plant-eating animals tends to be very long (greater than 10 times body length) to allow adequate time and space for absorption of the nutrients. Colon The large intestine (colon) of carnivores is simple and very short, as its only purposes are to absorb salt and water. It is approximately the same diameter as the small intestine and, consequently, has a limited capacity to function as a reservoir. The colon is short and non-pouched. The muscle is distributed throughout the wall, giving the colon a smooth cylindrical appearance. Although a bacterial population is present in the colon of carnivores, its activities are essentially putrefactive. In herbivorous animals, the large intestine tends to be a highly specialized organ involved in water and electrolyte absorption, vitamin production and absorption, and/or fermentation of fibrous plant materials. The colons of herbivores are usually wider than their small intestine and are relatively long. In some plant- eating mammals, the colon has a pouched appearance due to the arrangement of the muscle fibers in the intestinal wall. Additionally, in some herbivores the cecum (the first section of the colon) is quite large and serves as the primary or accessory fermentation site. What About Omnivores? One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet. This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores. Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters. (Interestingly, Polar bears hibernate during the summer months when seals are unavailable.) In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The jaw joint of bears is in the same plane as the molar teeth. The temporalis muscle is massive, and the angle of the mandible is small corresponding to the limited role the pterygoid and masseter muscles play in operating the jaw. The small intestine is short (less than five times body length) like that of the pure carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short. The most prominent adaptation to an herbivorous diet in bears (and other “anatomical” omnivores) is the modification of their dentition. Bears retain the peg-like incisors, large canines and shearing premolars of a carnivore; but the molars have become squared with rounded cusps for crushing and grinding. Bears have not, however, adopted the flattened, blunt nails seen in most herbivores and retain the elongated, pointed claws of a carnivore. An animal which captures, kills and eats prey must have the physical equipment which makes predation practical and efficient. Since bears include significant amounts of meat in their diet, they must retain the anatomical features that permit them to capture and kill prey animals. Hence, bears have a jaw structure, musculature and dentition which enable them to develop and apply the forces necessary to kill and dismember prey even though the majority of their diet is comprised of plant foods. Although an herbivore-style jaw joint (above the plane of the teeth) is a far more efficient joint for crushing and grinding vegetation and would potentially allow bears to exploit a wider range of plant foods in their diet, it is a much weaker joint than the hinge-style carnivore joint. The herbivore-style jaw joint is relatively easily dislocated and would not hold up well under the stresses of subduing struggling prey and/or crushing bones (nor would it allow the wide gape carnivores need). In the wild, an animal with a dislocated jaw would either soon starve to death or be eaten by something else and would, therefore, be selected against. A given species cannot adopt the weaker but more mobile and efficient herbivore-style joint until it has committed to an essentially plant-food diet test it risk jaw dislocation, death and ultimately, extinction. What About Me? The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so- called “muscles of expression” are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic “square jaw” of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind. Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods. Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans. Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.) The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross- section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated. In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a “committed” herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet. Oh, and why is that? Macro evolution does not need a God to occur. So why believe in a God when there would be no reason to do so? My faith in God is not irrational, and is minuscule compared to the faith people who believe in macro evolution have to have in order to believe it. Belief in macro evolution is irrational.
God is always good!
Genesis says God created all things in six days and then he rested on the seventh. ] A) Do you read Hebrew? He didn't need evolution to do that. He didn't need to do it as you wish for him to have done it. It's quite obvious that there is much that you don't understand about how things work, but don't expect God to rely on your lack of imagination in order for Him to do what he does. If macro evolution were ever proven to be true, then I could longer believe in God. Again, why is THAT? Is it simply that if God works in ways you don't understand, then there must not be a God?
Wrong. The very fact that DNA is a blueprint for life indicates that an intelligence beyond our understanding created not only the DNA, but the concept of DNA and the mechanisms for it to behave as it does. That's nothing compared to the nature of matter, energy, time, and space. For it all to behave as it does, and for life to exist, there has to something beyond dumb luck.
Sorry, but your lie must DIE: Source: http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/01/southern-alaska-peninsula- caribou-herd-recovers-af/ July 1, 2008 Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd recovers after aerial wolf control State wildlife biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game shot and killed more than two dozen wolves from a helicopter last month to help a small caribou herd struggling to survive on the Alaska Peninsula. It marked the first time since 1985 that ADF&G personnel have shot and killed wolves from the air as part of a predator control plan. Biologists killed 28 wolves on the calving grounds of the Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd near Cold Bay, located about 600 miles southwest of Anchorage, to stop what has been a precipitous decline as a result of extremely poor calf survival. In the last six years, the herd has declined from 4,100 caribou to 600. Biologists have counted a total of only six surviving calves in the herd in the past two years. Wolves from three packs were shot from a helicopter while on or near the calving grounds in late May and early June, according to a press release issued by the department on Friday. So far, biologists are encouraged by the results of the air strike, which was approved by the Alaska Board of Game in March. Biologists estimate 63 percent of the approximately 450 calves born this spring survived their first two weeks of life and both pregnancy rates — 90 percent — and weights of newborn calves indicate the herd is healthy, department spokesman Bruce Bartley in Anchorage said. “That pretty much leaves predation” as the reason for the herd’s decline, he said. While it’s too early to tell how many calves will survive the summer, most caribou calf mortality occurs during the first few weeks of life, according to the department. Telemetry flights will be flown periodically throughout the summer to document further mortality. Biologists captured 65 newborn calves to be weighed and fitted with radio collars equipped with mortality sensors so biologists can track them and identify a cause of death if necessary. “If they survive the summer as we suspect they will, we’ll probably have more calves survive this year than we’ve had the last several years combined,” Bartley said. The latest figures show wolves are still the biggest killer of caribou calves, however. Of the 24 deaths documented by biologists among radio-collared calves in the first weeks after calving (36.7 percent of the total number of calves), wolves killed seven (10.8 percent) of the radio-collared calves, while bears accounted for five calf deaths (7.6 percent). Another four calves (6.1 percent) were killed by either wolves or bears, but biologists were not able to determine which one. Two calves drowned (3.1 percent) and one died of starvation (1.5 percent). The other five (7.6 percent) died of undetermined causes. Though the herd ranges primarily within the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not permit wolf control on federal lands in Alaska, its calving grounds are on state lands and both the department and game board felt the action was necessary to preserve the herd. This is the first time in about 15 years that state wildlife biologists have actively participated in a wolf control program. In the past five years, the state has relied on private pilots and gunners to kill wolves in different parts of the state where moose or caribou populations are too low to meet the needs and demands of subsistence and sport hunters. More than 800 wolves have been killed in the past five years as a result of the program. Permitted pilot/gunner teams shoot wolves from the air or land and shoot them, practices that have twice been outlawed twice by Alaska voters in state ballot initiatives but were revived by the Alaska Legislature five years ago when it gave the Alaska Board of Game authority to approve citizen-based predator control. But that program could be halted if a ballot initiative that would allow only ADF&G personnel to shoot wolves or grizzly bears from the air in the event of a “biological emergency” is passed in August. The initiative is on the Aug. 26 primary ballot. The situation with the South Alaska Peninsula herd may very well have fallen into the biological emergency category, said Joel Bennett of Juneau, one of the initiative sponsors. “It sure sounds like it would be a candidate for what we had in mind,” Bennett said. “The two key elements from our perspective is that the commissioner make the determination that it’s a biological emergency, not the Board of Game, and that it is based on adequate data, which in this case they would argue they have.” While there is no definition for exactly what a “biological emergency” is, Bennett said it is basically a situation where a population will suffer an irreversible decline if something isn’t done.
_________________________________________________________________________ OK, if you would have told me you were a troll at the start I could have saved my typing on you. You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying.
God is always good!
Have you ever heard of the Big Bang Ricky? Contrary to what you think you've read, it basically proves the existance of God, as the truth about the Big Bang is that EVERYTHING came into existance at once in a primordial flash of energy and light. What created that flash of energy can only be called God. Let there be Light...
Are you that big of an ass not to understand what I'm saying to you?
From Alaska Judge Upholds Aerial Wolf Killing But Limits Extent ANCHORAGE, Alaska, March 18, 2008 (ENS) - A federal judge on Friday invalidated the aerial gunning of wolves in several areas of Alaska in a case brought by four conservation groups challenging the state's wolf control program. At the same time, Superior Court Judge William Morse upheld the practice of shooting wolves from planes and helicopters. The program was challenged by Friends of Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, and the Sierra Club, who sued the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game in 2006 after the Board extended the areas where aerial gunning was allowed. In his decision, Judge Morse examined the entire history of Alaska's wolf control programs. His ruling upholds the aerial gunning program as a whole, while banning the practice in four areas covering up to 15,000 of the total of about 60,000 square miles covered by the program. The areas where the judge banned aerial gunning are the areas into which the Game Board extended it in 2006, notably covering the entire Forty Mile caribou herd near Tok and also in an area across Cook Inlet from Anchorage. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimates there are now between 7,700 and 11,200 wolves in the state. State wildlife managers say they prey too heavily on caribou and moose and that the aerial shooting program will increase the populations of these animals needed by subsistance hunters. But the conservation groups maintain that the science on which the Game Board bases its decisions is not sufficient to justify killing more than 700 wolves since the program began in 2003. From her office in Darien, Connecticut, Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, said, "Our efforts in the lawsuit stopped aerial wolf control in 12,000 - 15,000 square miles of Alaska - that's four regions into which the state had expanded their reckless killing schemes in 2006. They've opened 60,000 square miles to aircraft and helicopter-assisted shooting as the bureaucracy is hell bent on killing wolves all across the state." "These ghastly forays must be halted by public publicy, a majority of voters on a ballot initiative in August, and through other reforms and legal challenges," said Feral. "Alaska's mean-spirited predator control programs are a blight on the continent. Friends of Animals is commited to holding the Board of Game's feet to the fire; their process is a sham." In his ruling, Judge Morse acknowledged the heated political climate surrounding the issue. "The Court cannot ignore the political war that has been raging for a decade between those who favor wolf control programs and those who oppose them," he wrote. "The public has passed two initiatives to stop certain wolf control programs; the legislature has twice reauthorized the Board to implement the programs. But the Board's recent actions have to be evaluated on a narrow stage," Judge Morse wrote, concluding that the Board did not violate the law when it adopted the aerial gunning program at issue in the case. Alaska voters will again have an opportunity to weigh in on aerial wolf control when they go to the polls in August. Commenting on the ruling, Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, said, "This reinforces the need for the ballot initiative on this issue in August. Defenders will continue to work with Alaskans for Wildlife and others to ensure the people's right to vote and once again restrict the aerial hunting of wolves." But meanwhile, the Board of Game intends to reinstate the areas excluded by the judge. Board of Game chairman Cliff Judkins told the Associated Press "the problems can be corrected through emergency regulation," which could happen as early as this week. In Washington, House Democrats introduced legislation last September that would protect wolves, bears, and other wildlife from airborne hunting. The Protect America's Wildlife Act, or PAW Act, was introduced by California Congressman George Miller along with Congressman John Dingell of Michigan, the floor manager of the debate on the original Airborne Hunting Act; and Congressman Norm Dicks of Washington state, chair of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Now before the Committee on Natural Resources, the bill, H.R. 3663, would close a loophole in federal law that Alaska officials have used to permit hunters to shoot wolves from aircraft. "It's time to ground Alaska's illegal and inhumane air assault on wolves," said Miller. "The state of Alaska has been operating an airborne hunting program that not only ignores federal law but violates Alaskans' and other Americans' wishes. The PAW Act will help to protect our nation's wildlife from the unethical and unfair practice of airborne hunting." The PAW Act provides that states can only conduct activities prohibited by the Airborne Hunting Act to respond to legitimate biological and other emergencies, not just to authorize otherwise-illegal hunting practices. The bill does not alter existing exceptions for the use of aircraft for animal control where land, livestock, water, pets, crops, or human health and safety are at risk. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved. The sensationalism and smears in this story would make ABRAHAM FOXMAN proud.
_________________________________________________________________________ Whatever dude. You are pro death, I am not. Good luck to you on your quest for blood.
Wolves is bad. Turtles is good.
LOL I could have told you that would happen.
i support this completly its not my idea of hunting and i would never do it but if someone wantsto do it more power to them its not my place or the governmants to say they cant
the american government is a disease masquerading as its own cure This is why I don't trust you as far as I can spit, as you have a habit of siding with anyone who disparages me here, no matter what the topic might be, and no matter how ludicrous the other poster's comment might be. In fact, I don't think you have EVER sided with me, except in perhaps a rare case here or there in that opposition to what I said would not bring you any support. In other words, I STILL think you are nothing but a shill. Show me how I'm wrong. Demonstrate where I have taken words out of context here, and how you aren't just siding with Ricky in an attempt to make me look bad, where I've done nothing here that you are accusing me of.
Is this what you approve of?
In fact farmfriend, I find your posting style to be oddly familiar. We were just talking about Marguerite earlier today, and now that I think of it, you appear to have the same sort of posting style, albeit you would obviously need to toss a huge amount of camouflage over yourself in order to be seen as a "good guy" here... Your inquiries into people's actual identities has always left me a bit leary of you. I find it a bit odd that you hinted that you knew who Byteshredder was earlier this evening, then turned around and said you didn't know who he was, and that you don't poke around finding out other people's identities, where I know that's a huge lie.
If I had a dollar for everytime you have taken what I said and twisted it into something it was not, I wouldn't be hurting for money right now. And if you go back and read my post you will see that is the only part I quoted or agreed with. I used to think you were a friend so I must have sided with you at some point. Now I pretty much ignore you actually. Rarely do I ever post to you and today I was quite civil to you. We used to agree quite often before you started calling me a shill and suggesting I was untrustworthy, twisting what I say and accusing me of all kinds of crap like posting under another name etc. As for your suggestion that I oppose you just to oppose you, you are just not that important. I really could't care less if you trust me or not. Couldn't care less if you think I'm a shill. As for people supporting me, I don't base my opinions on whether they will be popular or not and I have been known to rush to the defense of those I completely disagree with simply because I consider them a friend. I regret having ever called you a friend. I felt stabbed in the back when you turned on me without warning. So when you start saying I'm untrustworthy or a shill, I just assume you are projecting.
I never said that. God you are an ass. See this post of yours is a prime axample of why I agreed with Ricky on that one post you twist everything. As for trying to find out peoples identies, that is really twisting my attempts to connect with people into something nepharious. I was just trying to make friends with people. I always have. I've gone and visited fellow posters many times. Even had a wonderful dinner with B4Ranch/Sparker. See that's why your crap about me won't fly. I've talked with too many people outside the forum, met and worked with too many on projects. You can doubt me and my motives all you want but it will never make it reality.
I had been civil with you until you decided to poke at me here without having the courtesy of pinging me. That is not being civil in my book, and indicates you have no intent of having a civil discussion, you just found a convenient opportunity to make me look bad and you took it, hoping that I had gone to sleep and wouldn't see it apparently... So my opinion of you is what it is. In fact, I did see you as a friend when you first came here, and even stood up for you in regards to what was going on over at LP between you and Byteshredder. It wasn't until you started hounding me in email in regards to your views on Thimerosal and your siding with JC Harris that I began to wonder about you. That was followed by your incessant bitching about another poster here where you disagreed with her stance on global warming, dragged me into that debate, where you then took the side of big oil and used known industry shills as your "sources", then tried to make ME look as if I was guilty of what you were in fact doing... I really don't care WHO the hell you are, but if you give me crap here, I'll return it spades. Just remember that...
Well perhaps I misinterpreted these words... Me? I don't give a shit who someone is or what their position is. It's easy to jump to conclusions with what's happened in the past.
OK, if you would have told me you were a troll at the start I could have saved my typing on you. You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying. God is always good! RickyJ posted on 2009-02-04 2:06:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #242. To: RickyJ (#235) You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying. LOL I could have told you that would happen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who farmfriend posted on 2009-02-04 3:42:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Well RickyJ and farmfriend, since this is the post you are saying that I'm being a troll and twisting your words, please show me how that is true... Wrong. The very fact that DNA is a blueprint for life indicates that an intelligence beyond our understanding created not only the DNA, but the concept of DNA and the mechanisms for it to behave as it does. That's nothing compared to the nature of matter, energy, time, and space. For it all to behave as it does, and for life to exist, there has to something beyond dumb luck. Oh let me guess, you're pissed that I didn't include your entire statement and only focused on the part that I was responding to. I'm sure it's clear to everyone here but you and farmfriend that I was responding to your comments concerning macro evolution and the need for God to be involved with that. It's also clear as day that you are a hardline Bible thumper, so I doubt anyone could mistake you for an "atheist" if that's what your concern is...
Of course they were. To think otherwise is stupid and ignorant.
Comments (255 - 460) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou quote a blog site (an anti-vegan site at that) as your "scientific proof"?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#215. To: farmfriend (#210)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#216. To: farmfriend (#214)
You didn't read the site did you. Knew you wouldn't.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#217. To: RickyJ (#213)
You said "creation is an ongoing process", that is what I find so unbelievable. What is it that you think has been created lately without man doing it?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#218. To: FormerLurker (#215)
Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D. Introduction
There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.
Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.
The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.
There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#219. To: RickyJ (#213)
To believe in macro evolution one must believe that in enough time that the computers of today, which are much less complex than humans, could come into existence without anyone ever making them and programs for them that can do meaningful things such as edit an image could happen by pure chance without anyone actually making them.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#220. To: FormerLurker (#163)
Hence leading to an over population of other animals, leading to death by starvation as THEIR food supplies dwindle.
#221. To: FormerLurker (#217)
New stars, planets, and life on those worlds.
#222. To: farmfriend (#218)
Humans are Omnivores
Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D. A rational critique of:
Humans are Omnivores
Adapted from a talk by vivisectionist John McArdle, Ph.D.Introduction
And, unfortunately, there are many more annoyingly-popular pseudo-scientific myths, masquerading as science, that humans are "omnivores"; those in this article will be refuted.
We will find that JM consistently fails to support his thesis with real science by erroneously substituting cultural practices for scientific facts and conclusions, the most common and fatal error of those falsely claiming than humans are "omnivores". Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Right, these 'classifications' are Linnaean nomenclature which is archaic, out-of-date, and based on insignificant, fragmentary fossilized data alleging to track the human lineage, which should be completely overhauled in light of modern genetic research. JM, a claimed "anatomist and primatologist" at the PhD level, should be aware of this critical fact, and the profound differences between Nature and culture, but we will see that he is not, much to his own embarrassment.
This is the crux of the matter: "you will see that taxonomy is more of an art than a science", "that there isn't even solid agreement on which species belong in which orders", "A little confusion is probably a good thing to learn to accept when it comes to classifying animals."
So, we see that this non-science and confusion dominate JM's faulty presentation, and it is a primary cause for his false conclusion that "Humans are Omnivores". In fact, search as you will, there is no taxonomical classification as "omnivore".
A little truth has leaked out. These 'classifications' are mere conveniences, not strictly defined in a reasonable, rigorous, scientific manner.Omnivorism
Notice, there is NO useful, meaningful, or even vaguely-scientific anatomical/physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore", and JM foolishly ignores the inescapable fact that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do! In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!
JM has made the all-to-common and fatal error in his totally unscientific and unsupportable claims by confusing Nature and culture; a grievous error which most grade school children would not make. Humans are clearly not natural "omnivores". Some are cultural "omnivores", and indeed must rely on cultural artifacts to raise, kill, butcher, cook, disguise with seasonings, cut up, and finally consume their animal prey. Again, the false definition rests on the phrase "capable of consuming"; however, humans have no natural capability to do so. If they did, they would. Thus, relying on an absurd false definition, JM inevitably and inescapably comes to a false conclusion.
Another insight into the falsity of this concept rests in the mistaken confusion, and proposed false-identity, of the verbs: to be, and to do. Being refers to our genetic code and its consequences, while doing is totally unrelated and a consequence of cultural programming.
Let's examine JM's muddled "thinking" a bit to see how completely absurd, and perhaps intentionally- misleading, the "capable" definition really is.
Humans are "capable" of flying through the air; that makes us birds or flying insects, right?
Humans are "capable" of traveling under water; that makes us fish or sea worms, right?
Humans are "capable" of tunneling through the earth; that makes us earthworms or moles, right?
Another unintentional admission that we are not natural omnivores; we have a choice; animals, however, do not have any choices, they rely on their genetically-programmed instincts to kill and eat animal prey. Humans have no instincts to do so, in spite of the foolish claims of various Instincto cults. Choices are cultural, not instinctual. How can someone with even a trivial education not understand the profound difference between culture and Nature?The Great Apes
Totally irrelevant, we are apes, not "mammals in general" nor random primates. Actually, we are Pongidae, only the horrendous human ego has chosen to elevate ourselves to another, exclusively ours, thus false classification. With a genetic difference of a mere ~1.6% from the chimp, our closest genetic relative, it should be obvious that our diet should be essentially that of the chimp. Clearly, the genetic distances from various, scientifically- indefinable natural "omnivores" would be much more, thus, again, refuting JM's unsupportable claim of "humans are omnivores".
Whoops - chimps are frugivorous, eating mostly fruit when available, and falling back on leaves when sufficient fruit is not, and JM is claimed to be a primatologist.
"Frequently" turns out to be a self-serving distortion, apparently for the sake of his pre-conceived and false conclusion, and for a "primatologist", it must be intentional. Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare, ~1.4% of their diet, not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need, and is clearly cultural, since flesh is used to gain sexual favors --humorously-similar to human dating.
Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record
JM> As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning.
More muddled "thinking". The "archeological record" so referenced is purely self- selecting, thus misleading, since that "evidence" is only produced by cultural processes, which include tool- marked bones and evidence of fire. The true frugivorous, natural, non- tool-using, human would leave NO evidence at all, since all food wastes would be composted into oblivion. Tools produce enduring evidence, raw-food eating humans do not; however, that certainly does not mean they did not exist. They exist today, and produce no long-term "archeological evidence" of their diet in the local ecosystems.
Whoops -- once culture is in play, its effects can not be used to assess the natural human. Anthro-apologists like to ignore this critical fact, thus reducing their verbal output to mere exercises in creative writing, certainly not real science.
JM> Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.
Totally irrelevant to humans. But, mindless insertion of irrelevancies that sound correct is a common ploy of anthro-apologists in order to created the illusion of scientific credibility.
JM> Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs
derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.
Again, factual but totally irrelevant to humans, or the "omnivore" issue; this applies to herbivores, not frugivorous humans.
JM> Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or
fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth. The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium
and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates
with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets.
Love that self- contradiction.
Yes, archaeology is confused and mistaken.
JM> Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
"Could"? Where is the evidence? Without evidence, "could" and "could not" are identical.
JM> Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.
More irrelevancies and errors to obfuscate the issue. The surface area of a cylinder IS linearly proportional to the length. We are "intermediate" between a carnivore and another carnivore, so what does that mean?
Conclusion (false)
JM> Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits.
This is a blatant lie. JM has presented no anatomical definition, or even an attempt to generate a rigorous, testable, anatomical definition of "omnivore"; this is not possible, since the anatomies of various natural omnivores is so diverse that no coherent patterns can be found.
The "vegetarian diet" is generally cooked, is centered on grains and beans, and may include dairy and eggs; this was not a discussion of a "vegetarian diet". Another irrelevant dodge and intentional obfuscation.
The "ethical" argument is totally bogus, since there is no objective set of ethics to which one can compare to determine what is more, or less, "ethical" than what. That is, individuals just make up their own ethical standards to suit their purposes of the moment. Hitler did what he did, based on his own personal set of ethics; so does JM.
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]
Clearly unqualified and hopelessly-confused on very fundamental facts and real science. And he has a PhD; that's frightening. Worse, look at some more of his hysterically-emotional nonsense.
The Vegetarian Resource Group, P.O. Box 1463, Dept. IN Baltimore, MD 21203 (410) 366-VEGE
Sad, really sad. And these people are supposed to be "vegetarian" authorities?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#223. To: RickyJ (#221)
I'm sorry to hear of your delusional state. Hope you get help.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#224. To: FormerLurker (#219)
Can't you understand that evolution is but a tiny piece of that Creation, and that Creation itself goes well beyond that?
#225. To: RickyJ (#221)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#226. To: RickyJ (#224)
If believing in God required believing in macro evolution then I would be an atheist.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#227. To: FormerLurker (#215)
Oh and BTW, that link you posted does NOT dispute any of the physiological evidence that I mentioned, it simply beats down straw men.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#228. To: farmfriend (#227)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#229. To: FormerLurker (#219)
I never said that God did not create all that exists
#230. To: farmfriend (#227)
Here's something from a real MD.
Milton R. Mills, M.D. | A better and more objective technique...
SummaryFacial Muscles Carnivore Reduced to allow wide mouth gape Herbivore Well-developed Omnivore Reduced Human Well-developed Jaw Type Carnivore Angle not expanded Herbivore Expanded angle Omnivore Angle not expanded Human Expanded angle Jaw Joint Location Carnivore On same plane as molar teeth Herbivore Above the plane of the molars Omnivore On same plane as molar teeth Human Above the plane of the molars Jaw Motion Carnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion Herbivore No shear; good side-to-side, front-to- back Omnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side Human No shear; good side-to-side, front-to- back Major Jaw Muscles Carnivore Temporalis Herbivore Masseter and pterygoids Omnivore Temporalis Human Masseter and pterygoids Mouth Opening vs. Head Size Carnivore Large Herbivore Small Omnivore Large Human Small Teeth (Incisors) Carnivore Short and pointed Herbivore Broad, flattened and spade shaped Omnivore Short and pointed Human Broad, flattened and spade shaped Teeth (Canines) Carnivore Long, sharp and curved Herbivore Dull and short or long (for defense), or none Omnivore Long, sharp and curved Human Short and blunted Teeth (Molars) Carnivore Sharp, jagged and blade shaped Herbivore Flattened with cusps vs complex surface Omnivore Sharp blades and/or flattened Human Flattened with nodular cusps Chewing Carnivore None; swallows food whole Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing Human Extensive chewing necessary Saliva Carnivore No digestive enzymes Herbivore Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Omnivore No digestive enzymes Human Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Stomach Type Carnivore Simple Herbivore Simple or multiple chambers Omnivore Simple Human Simple Stomach Acidity Carnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach Herbivore pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Omnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach Human pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Stomach Capacity Carnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Herbivore Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract Omnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Human 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract Length of Small Intestine Carnivore 3 to 6 times body length Herbivore 10 to more than 12 times body length Omnivore 4 to 6 times body length Human 10 to 11 times body length Colon Carnivore Simple, short and smooth Herbivore Long, complex; may be sacculated Omnivore Simple, short and smooth Human Long, sacculated Liver Carnivore Can detoxify vitamin A Herbivore Cannot detoxify vitamin A Omnivore Can detoxify vitamin A Human Cannot detoxify vitamin A Kidney Carnivore Extremely concentrated urine Herbivore Moderately concentrated urine Omnivore Extremely concentrated urine Human Moderately concentrated urine Nails Carnivore Sharp claws Herbivore Flattened nails or blunt hooves Omnivore Sharp claws Human Flattened nails
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#231. To: FormerLurker (#226)
If believing in God required believing in macro evolution then I would be an atheist.
#232. To: RickyJ (#229)
B) Who wrote Genesis?
C) How long is a day for God?
D) Do you always believe everything written by Jews?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#233. To: RickyJ (#231)
Macro evolution does not need a God to occur. So why believe in a God when there would be no reason to do so?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#234. To: FormerLurker, Rotara, farmfriend, All (#0)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#235. To: FormerLurker (#233)
#236. To: RickyJ (#231)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#237. To: RickyJ (#235)
OK, if you would have told me you were a troll
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#238. To: X-15 (#234)
YOUR lying must stop
Alaska Judge Upholds Aerial Wolf Killing But Limits Extent
Hunter retrieves the body of a wolf shot from a plane. (Photo courtesy Wolf)
Alaska wolves number between 7,700 and 11,200. (Photo by John Hyde courtesy ADFG)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#239. To: FormerLurker (#238)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#240. To: X-15 (#239)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#241. To: FormerLurker (#11)
No place is better than Turtle Island.
#242. To: RickyJ (#235)
You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#243. To: FormerLurker, *Shooters* (#0)
#244. To: farmfriend (#242)
Your words to RickyJ - "LOL I could have told you that would happen"
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#245. To: freepatriot32 (#243)
more power to them its not my place or the governmants to say they cant
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#246. To: freepatriot32 (#243)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#247. To: farmfriend (#242)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#248. To: FormerLurker (#244)
This is why I don't trust you as far as I can spit, as you have a habit of siding with anyone who disparages me here, no matter what the topic might be, and no matter how ludicrous the other poster's comment might be.
In fact, I don't think you have EVER sided with me, except in perhaps a rare case here or there in that opposition to what I said would not bring you any support.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#249. To: FormerLurker (#247)
and that you don't poke around finding out other people's identities,
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss — The Who
#250. To: farmfriend (#249)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah, etc.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#251. To: farmfriend (#249)
I never said that. God you are an ass.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#252. To: RickyJ, farmfriend (#235)
#235. To: FormerLurker (#233)
#233. To: RickyJ (#231)
Macro evolution does not need a God to occur. So why believe in a God when there would be no reason to do so?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#253. To: RickyJ, farmfriend (#235)
OK, if you would have told me you were a troll at the start I could have saved my typing on you. You are taking my words out of context and then implying something I am in no way saying.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#254. To: abraxas (#209)
So, you think the Dinos were cruising around in the Garden of Eden?
.
.
.