Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Archaeology News
(05-13-2017, 09:31 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: What's with the backward-reaching horn coming from just above its front leg? What good would it do for the animal? Maybe if an Allosaur grabbed it by the midsection, the Nodosaur could bend and drive the horn through the head of the Allosaur.

How about this. These guys look bigger when they stand up. And since they almost certainly used their height to browse among vegetation that was harder for others to reach, the front legs may have been a great target for Mr Allosaurus to grab. After all allosaurs and T Rex were upright and taller, making it easier to grab without having to bend over. With armored front legs, those spikes wouldn't feel great inside the soft tissue of the inner mouth. S5

Did you notice how warm it was up there when that big guy was here? Global warming baby.
(05-13-2017, 09:49 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: If you analyze the animal foods listed as unclean in Leviticus 11, you will find that they all consist of omnivores, scavengers, or carnivores--all of which would tend to concentrate toxins in the environment. The animal foods listed as clean were all herbivores, which would pick up the least contaminants in the environment.

Certainly similar observations could be made in other cultures. There was nothing secret about the distinctions between clean and unclean animals--the Genesis account of the Flood says that it was only unclean animals that went into Noah's Ark by twos--clean animals went into the Ark by sevens. (See Genesis 7:2.)
Out of curiosity, why  would God allow unclean species to survive?   Diversity??  Or the fact that there needs to be a sort of natural "janitorial staff"??  And in the case of the Baconators, why would he make them taste so damn good?

[Image: th?id=OIP.JwOx_9dG02UhkNTeGzUoQwEsEs&pid...=109&h=109]
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Scavengers have obvious utility. Carnivores help control the numbers of the herbivores, so they don't proliferate to the point of ecological upset. This isn't the way God originally intended things to be in nature, but He apparently decided to allow nature to teach us with its being "red in tooth and claw," what the reality would be of living life based on selfish striving.

As for why bacon tastes so good, perhaps it is a matter of our tastes becoming perverted. Some friends of mine who were lifelong vegetarians, were challenged by some non-vegetarian friends to see how their children would react to the taste of meat--in the form of beef in spaghetti. All six children had been raised without ever tasting meat. They each reacted negatively to the taste of meat, and when they found out why their food tasted so funny, were upset with the adults involved for foisting a carnivorous diet upon them. Some of the children were fairly small, and manifested their negative reaction merely by crying and rejecting the food.

I, and most vegetarians I know, were raised as non-vegetarians, and adopted a mostly vegetarian lifestyle by choice later in life. So I cannot really know intuitively how animal foods of any kind would taste to a person who was raised without being exposed to such food.

All this, of course, is apart from consideration that most animals used for food are sentient beings, with minds and emotions remarkably similar to our own, and that in almost all cases, there is no longer any need to use animals for food. In fact, providing nourishment for people can be done for far less expense, and far less damage to the land, by vegetarian means. Using plants for food is 10 to 12 times as efficient as using animals for food that have to be fed large amounts of plants to produce edible meat, dairy products, etc. In other words, you can feed 10-12 times as many people on a given parcel of land if they just eat the plants grown there, compared to feeding the people meat from the animals that are fed plants grown on the parcel of land. It has also been remarked many times how increasingly desperate is the problem of contamination of ground water in the states that have a heavy cattle industry, from the massive amount of manure generated, which far exceeds the benefit of fertilizing the soil.

For those of us who were raised with a taste for animal foods, there are meat analogs made of vegetable protein that most people find quite good and satisfying--such as the Morningstar Farms frozen foods like "Grillers" and "Stripples" and "Chik Patties" and "Riblets" and meatless "sausage" (patties and links), even vegetarian fish substitutes like "Tuno." Most of these foods are available in any Kroger store. Turkey substitutes such as "Tofurky" are more likely to be found in health food stores. In addition to the frozen foods, there is a wide variety of meat analogs sold in the form of canned products, such as "Linketts" and "Fri-Chik," that are more commonly found in health food stores. I often order mine through Amazon--especially "Fri-Chik" and "Prime steaks" and "Swiss Steaks." But be advised that most of these products are largely based on soy protein and wheat protein. Some people are sensitive to soy protein, and some people are sensitive to wheat gluten (the protein in wheat). There is a line of meat analogs that comes from Britain, based on fungal Mycelium--the underground part of mushrooms--with the brand name, Quorn. It is not vegan though, because their products are mixed with egg whites. But it does not contain any soy or wheat.

All these meat analogs provide high concentrations of fully balanced proteins equal to meat--without the cholesterol and high fat content of meats. And, of course, without the diseases and parasites often found in meat.
I always wondered if taste buds vary from person to person. Is there any reason why what I perceive to be vanilla might not taste like chocolate to someone else? Must be some reason why foods I like are disliked by someone else.
I'm getting more like Ron on this 'meat' thing. As I am able to get on the internet and see videos of animals showing the same emotions as humans, and the fact that they are much smarter than we ever perceived, I am turned off with the fact that we have to slaughter those caring and loving animals, such as dogs, cows, horses, pigs, seals, and a host of other mammals. The only thing they seem to be short on is a pair of hands and voice coils that would enable them to communicate and have manual dexterity.

They have shown that they can think for themselves, and they know when they are going to be slaughtered. I would never be able to make it through even one hour at a slaughter house, having to listen to those terrified critters, crying for help, and none there to offer them but death.

If the genetic manipulated meats are perfected, I will not have a worry, because that doesn't involve slaughtering our four legged neighbors.

I am constantly reminded of the little bushman, who cradles his prey, and offers praise and condolences for having to take the animal's life. That's exactly how I feel about this.

Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC



Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)