Originally posted by kevcvs57
I am simply using the term objective in the sense that if the antelope survives; the coding for survival for that organism in that environment, at that time is successful i.e job done. For the antelope that did not survive I would say the opposite is true.

And it is my claim that there is no job to be done. The animal either lives, or it dies. The job is an illusion.

but to me the water is something else another category it has properties rather than strategies.
Yet you have not explained why. You simply state that it is.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I did give some thought to your examples and as I stated there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them as a description of natural selection but they did nothing to convince me of your argument because I did not feel that I was making the claims that they were addressing; hence my labeling them inane/pointless.

That you failed to understand them or get the point is not a good enough reason to dismiss them or be rude about it. If they don't address your claims then explain why and where.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
there are slaves who work to produce your clothes and many of the raw materials that you use every day.

How is this relavent to the subject at hand, even if I agree with your premise?

Originally posted by whodey
How is this relavent to the subject at hand, even if I agree with your premise?

you replied to a post "So if there is precious little seperating animals and humans then I would presume that you defend animal rights like you do human rights.

Is this the case?"

im just trying to show that we do not even protect the rights of other humans never mind animals.

so before i would ask "what separates animals from humans" i would ask, what separates human from human?
before we ever query why a man eats meat we need to know why we are okay that a child has died in picking cotton for western clothes companies.

http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/The%20Children%20behind%20Our%20Cotton%20FINAL.pdf

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you replied to a post "So if there is precious little seperating animals and humans then I would presume that you defend animal rights like you do human rights.

Is this the case?"

im just trying to show that we do not even protect the rights of other humans never mind animals.

so before i would ask "what separates animals from humans" i would ...[text shortened]... anies.

http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/The%20Children%20behind%20Our%20Cotton%20FINAL.pdf

I think most would agree that abusing humans is "sinful" no matter their intelligence level or ability. However, abusing animals is not as black and white it would appear. It seems that there are those amongst us who think that exploiting a weaker group of people/animals is key to our survival.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And it is my claim that there is no job to be done. The animal either lives, or it dies. The job is an illusion.

[b]but to me the water is something else another category it has properties rather than strategies.
Yet you have not explained why. You simply state that it is.[/b]

Your claim is simply incorrect because you are refusing to place it in the context of an evolutionary model rather than your uncles rabbit farm. Your examples are incredibly simplistic and in the case of the rabbit farmer just plain wrong as a model for testing the process of natural selection/survival of the best adapted. I sugguest you spend less time being a pompous baboon and spend more time reading such books as 'the origin of the species' and 'the selfish gene'. Oh yeah and maybe try reading peoples replies; as apposed to giving them a cusory glance to check that they have not capitulated, you might find you actually learn something from this forum.

Originally posted by whodey
I think most would agree that abusing humans is "sinful" no matter their intelligence level or ability. However, abusing animals is not as black and white it would appear. It seems that there are those amongst us who think that exploiting a weaker group of people/animals is key to our survival.

if abusing humans is "sinful" the i guess we are all going to hell. i agree the abuse of animals isnt black and white, i would say there is no single moral guide for people to follow, we all have our own moral compasses we follow on the matter (but i would imagine most people are confused and change their morals on a decision by decision basis).

exploiting a weaker group for survival isnt a universal thing, it depends on who you are and where you live. if the population of europe became vegetarian over night, would there be enough veg to keep them supplied? where is the extra veg coming from? if it was just one nation at a time over a stretched out period of time it would give the worlds food supply time to adjust.
i dont think man needs to exploit man but the whole of society would need to be restructured and capitalism abolished. i hate to say it but i think its probably to late to turn back. the fact we in the developed world can have a nice day knowing that children are starving to death around the globe shows that no matter how much we care, we dont care enough and that say a lot about human nature.

Originally posted by whodey
I think most would agree that abusing humans is "sinful" no matter their intelligence level or ability. However, abusing animals is not as black and white it would appear. It seems that there are those amongst us who think that exploiting a weaker group of people/animals is key to our survival.

Whodey you are entitled to your opinion, as is everybody else is on this matter but for obvious reasons somebody of faith is never going to agree with an atheist who takes variables like evolution( there was a time when the exploitation of weaker/less intelligent species was 'key to our survival) into account. I think we can all agree that being horrible to our fellow humans and other animals is wrong/ an unfortunate aspect of our nature. We are part of the food chain as we have always been, and although we could be accused being irresponsible in our relatively new role at the top of the chain we could do worse. It is hard to imagine any 'animal rights' or 'enviromental' groups amongst previous top predators. Where you would use the term 'sinful' I would employ terms such as 'imperfect' or perhaps, in a more optimistic vein 'work in progress'.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I sugguest you spend less time being a pompous baboon and spend more time reading such books as 'the origin of the species' and 'the selfish gene'. Oh yeah and maybe try reading peoples replies; as apposed to giving them a cusory glance to check that they have not capitulated, you might find you actually learn something from this forum.

And I suggest you try being a little less rude, and put the rest of your own advice into practice.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if the population of europe became vegetarian over night, would there be enough veg to keep them supplied? where is the extra veg coming from?

The animal fodder of course. Producing meat requires many times its weight in vegetable fodder, and in developed countries this is often grain or other foods that humans can eat too.