Mud from rivers into the oceans

[mrswdk]

Maybe he's incompetent.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe he's incompetent.

If so, he tarnishes the name of fairy turtles.

[crispybits]

Maybe we're going about this backwards - maybe we should find a list of characteristics shared by all well designed things, and see if the universe meets these criteria.

https://www.vitsoe.com/gb/about/good-design

(It's about product design, but unsurprisingly we don't have good design principles guides for creating universes so it'll have to do for now, open to suggestions for others.)

1. Good design is innovative
Well, I guess it checks this box. If there was nothing before and God invented a universe it's certainly an innovation. 1/1

2. Good design makes a product useful
While the Earth certainly seems like a useful place to live, all those mineral deposits, all the natural crude oil and gas waiting to be drilled up, etc etc, there seems to be an awful lot of the universe that isn't very useful. What's the deal with all that space for one thing? Why do we need to be 4 light years from the next nearest planetary system? Why is only 15% of even this planet's surface habitable without special survival gear? Have to give a resounding no to this one. 1/2

3. Good design is aesthetic
While the universe certainly contains a lot of beauty, anyone looking at a picture of a blobfish or dobsonfly would be hard pressed to find anything particularly pleasing. Similarly anyone listening to nails scraping down a blackboard, or smelling skunk juice, wouldn't be calling those experiences "beautiful". Maybe it's like a lava lamp and it looks a lot better from the outside, but for now this one is a no. 1/3

4. Good design makes a product understandable
Well, at least 5-10 thousand years (most guesses go to at least twice that figure) after our first farming civilisations started, we're still trying to get to grips with how everything works. As recently as last century we had our last major paradigm shift in physics (relativity). We still don't even understand properly how our own brains work. 1/4

5. Good design is unobtrusive
I should expand that this is about allowing the user to have self-expression when using the product. Can't really argue against this one as every bit of self-expression ever in the history of the human race has happened within the universe. 2/5

6. Good design is honest
This one is all about not promising more than can be delivered. Again I think it would be hard to argue that the universe is dishonest (a little cruel sometimes maybe, but them's the breaks). 3/6

7. Good design is long-lasting
14 billion years or so and counting. 4/7

8. Good design is thorough down to the last detail
Given that we havent yet found any places that look a bit cobbled together or shoddy in their workmanship, I'd have to give it this one too. 5/8

9. Good design is environmentally-friendly
Well, what can you say here? Probably should have left this one off but then a fundie would just have complained. I will say that black holes don't seem particularly environmentally friendly, but then at least they don't make much mess either. 6/9

10. Good design is as little design as possible
Given the size and age of the universe, I struggle to see any argument why this design is efficient and minimal. 6/10

So, a massive 60% design goodness score for the universe. Seems God needs to go back to design school...

[_sabotage_]

The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.

Its not a scenario, unless you believe you don't exist. Unfortunately you are saying this to someone who does believe he exists and can observe why this is so.

You are right, science is a story until a better one comes along, and explaining the fact that the laws coincide to create our existence is random isn't a good story based on observable facts, so back to the drawing board with you lot. Don't worry, I'm sure you are smearing God to people regardless of the poor quality story you tell, but if you want some of the sounder souls, then you have your work cut out for you. I would try to work with observable and provable facts, going against the scientific method is a bit hypocritical.

You can't speak of statistics with a sample size of one. Your argument is, essentially, that if certain physical parameters had been slightly different (say, the fine structure constant), then life would not be supported. This is true. What is not true is to say that anyone is attributing this to random chance. No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky, and in the one universe that exists it just happened to land on the right parameters for a universe that supports life. A better way to think about our existence might be the anthropic principle. There are potentially a very large -- or infinite -- number of universes out there, and we are in the one that supports life because it's the one that supports life.

You can't talk about multiple universes if you can not observe them. You are actually directly suggesting a random number generator in the sky. And this is your theories only basis to support the unlikely chance at life. It's an unobserved, imagined premise. It is not scientific.

You are taking a haphazard leap of evidence and proof, that enables you to trash your fellow man. If you believe that you are right, it demands you trash your fellow man. And if you are right it means that you will fad into nothingness. When you present your ideas, do not forget to mention that this is the inevitable outcome of taking a ridiculous chance over a certainty.

[Metsfanmax]

The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.

Its not a scenario, unless you believe you don't exist. Unfortunately you are saying this to someone who does believe he exists and can observe why this is so.

You are right, science is a story until a better one comes along, and explaining the fact that the laws coincide to create our existence is random isn't a good story based on observable facts, so back to the drawing board with you lot. Don't worry, I'm sure you are smearing God to people regardless of the poor quality story you tell, but if you want some of the sounder souls, then you have your work cut out for you. I would try to work with observable and provable facts, going against the scientific method is a bit hypocritical.

You can't speak of statistics with a sample size of one. Your argument is, essentially, that if certain physical parameters had been slightly different (say, the fine structure constant), then life would not be supported. This is true. What is not true is to say that anyone is attributing this to random chance. No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky, and in the one universe that exists it just happened to land on the right parameters for a universe that supports life. A better way to think about our existence might be the anthropic principle. There are potentially a very large -- or infinite -- number of universes out there, and we are in the one that supports life because it's the one that supports life.

You can't talk about multiple universes if you can not observe them. You are actually directly suggesting a random number generator in the sky. And this is your theories only basis to support the unlikely chance at life. It's an unobserved, imagined premise. It is not scientific.

So what is the difference between my unobserved, imagined multiple universes and your unobserved, imagined god?

[_sabotage_]

That with my unobserved imagined God I am to respect life and not harm it; with your big bangs, it is necessary to struggle to survive and ensure your survival at the expense of others.

Edit: and for the record, my God is everything and therefore omnipresent and extremely observable, and that the science that you claim to cling to, is just the study of God, and you have let the facts be misinterpreted.

[Lootifer]

Man I dont know why you guys try to fight fire with fire (i.e. trying to scientifically explain god, from a neutral viewpoint all you're doing is giving scientists material with which to shake their heads).

The best argument for god is the one used in Life of Pi.

[Metsfanmax]

That with my unobserved imagined God I am to respect life and not harm it; with your big bangs, it is necessary to struggle to survive and ensure your survival at the expense of others.

So your argument is that your explanation is better because it makes you feel better about life? Also, why does the existence of this God necessitate that you respect life and not harm it? Also, do you eat meat?

[_sabotage_]

No my argument is that it's better because it only relies on scientifically verified proof, it provides a better story than yours does, allows for a better society and has a happy ending.

If God exists as an omnipresent reality, then he is the vessel of your soul regardless of how your soul feels. In harming you physically, I am doing nothing to your soul but merely harming the vessel. I am harming God. On the other hand, if I am deceiving you to the harm of your soul, then I am harming you, a creation of God. God created us all equally and I have no right to claim myself beyond his judgement on the equality of all.

You inviting me to a BBQ?

[Metsfanmax]

No my argument is that it's better because it only relies on scientifically verified proof, it provides a better story than yours does, allows for a better society and has a happy ending.

If God exists as an omnipresent reality, then he is the vessel of your soul regardless of how your soul feels. In harming you physically, I am doing nothing to your soul but merely harming the vessel. I am harming God. On the other hand, if I am deceiving you to the harm of your soul, then I am harming you, a creation of God. God created us all equally and I have no right to claim myself beyond his judgement on the equality of all.

If God is everywhere and everything, then you haven't proved anything scientifically; all you've done is redefined what the universe is. There's no prediction that can be made from it; it's just as useful to the scientist as the fairies. It may be aesthetically or philosophically pleasing, and may indeed inform our morals, but it doesn't help any working scientist (who is trying to understand the rules of the universe, whether or not they were designed by a creator) do their job.

You inviting me to a BBQ?

Curious as to whether you respect all life, or just the life that doesn't show up on your dinner plate.

[PLAYER57832]

The mouths of all rivers from around the globe, only have approximately 4,500 years worth of deposits. If the Continents were formed 120 million years ago as evolutionist believe, then why aren't there a sufficient amount of sediment deposits flowing from the mouths of rivers into the oceans/gulfs/seas to support this very old age. Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?

In addition, as the continents broke apart and South America broke apart from Africa, why doesn't the amazon leave a trail of deposit? And like wise the Mississippi river as well?

I hear ya'll saying that I'm wrong and your evidence authenticating I'm wrong ranges from I'm crazy, just avoid this thread, or just because, and with some attempt at logic with ocean currents eroding the proof of millions of years of sediment deposit , to dynamic rivers such that the mouth of the river changed locations.

Stopping you here, because you are bypassing, have continued to by pass a very important point. You started this thread, making statements that you want us to accept as real. SEVERAL of us have said, "no, your basic data is just wrong" and asked you to provide your evidence. Instead, you are now asking us to verify what we said. You are the one putting forward the claim, it is up to you to provide proof.

AND.. by-the-way, it IS a lot easier to disprove something than to prove it. That is why science is about attempting to disprove things. In fact, almost nothing is actually fully proven in science. Instead, ideas are thought up, tested/challenged. After facing many challenges, many ideas wind up being refined and, eventually, accepted. Even once "accepted", though, any idea will still face challenges. Evolution fits into that category. Above, though, you provide not a theory, but facts that are quite verifiable and quite understood.

The idea you have that the Earth only has 4,500 years of deposits in its streams is just wrong. I am interested in knowing how you came up with that. Hearing the explanation, I might possibly then be able to explain where your error lies, but right now, that is impossible.

But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf. They are smooth,

??

No the continental shelves are not smooth. Landforms under the sea are similar to those on land, but are LESS smooth, LESS worn, not more so.

Again, it might be helpful if you showed where you got your information. How did you come to even imagine this was the truth?

But if you look at a picture of the continents with the water removed, you will see a continental shelf.so if the mouth changed location , NASA would detect that. But the delta fan deposits of all the rivers in all the world flowing into all the oceans/gulf/seas only has enough sediment deposits for roughly 4,500 years worth of deposits.

???

River mouths change location a LOT. We have records showing how much the Mississippi river has changed, for example. Some rivers, such as the Klamath in CA are bound by rocks and so don't shift a lot. Others are in soft sediments. The Colorado, the Rio Grande all have shifted.

I believe in Pangea that the continents at one time fit together, but as they slowly drifted apart wouldn't the Congo liver leave some residual trail on the ocean floor, wouldn't the Amazon leave some deposit trail on the ocean floor? Ocean currents or not, there would be a deposit trail. Unless the continent separation happened quickly.

I would have to look at the Geological records, but I don't think that either of those rivers existed at that time. I believe they came about later. I definitely might be wrong on that, but since this comes only after the above questions, I am not going to get into it. First things first.

Do you think its possible that the continental drift had an early acceleration and now a slow drift? Wouldn't this be a more plausible explanation of why the lack of sediment deposits?

Go back. Your INITIAL assumptions are just wrong. Your question just has no real basis because it has arisen from some fundamental misunderstandings about how the world and streams work.

[khazalid]

in biblical terms of course, the animals are here for our use and benefit. we have dominion over them.

i think this is a cunning biblical trick. an even newer testament would surely prohibit the eating of flesh

[PLAYER57832]

perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?

Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.

Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.

Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.

Pangea is thought to have existed around 300 years ago (according to wikki), but the genus homo (the Genus that includes modern human beings) only came around a couple of million years ago.

You are expecting artifacts from a time well before humanity existed.

[universalchiro]

perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?

Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.

Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.

Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.

Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.

My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.

This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.

Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.

you aren't making any sense here. Where do rivers come from? hum? so when you had pangea you think those rivers existed? rivers come mainly from melting snow in mountains. where do mountains come from? tectonic plates derivation and crash between themselves.

You start with asteroids and other floating elements after the big bang that start adding up together due to gravitation, creating lots of heat and forces. this eventually evolves into a sphere with a very hot core, being itself under the influence of the sun's gravitation. At some point, an ice comet hits it with a huge impact. this makes a lot of debris that add up togeter and become the moon. Meanwhile, the surface of the earth globe find itself under the water, with just 20% or so out of it. the crust is then subject to several forces due to the core and mantle geothermic activity. Eventually, an athmosphere is created, and the earth generates enough gravity to hold it. Lots of luck for everything of course, but as already said; sometimes impossible rolls happen on CC everyone complains about it!

I understand your view Betiko, you are in the high majority with your views and I'm in the <1%. But the prevailing hypothesis has flaws, and though this doesn't proven that another view is truth, it does question the validity of the current theory. Setting aside the Bible for this discussion, I can address everyone on your contentions and a flaw associated with each of them from a scientific point of view, so let's take a deep breath and recognize that though you are supported by the majority, it's still a hypothesis. And if there wasn't the Bible, I would still question the logic of the prevailing hypothesis. But for this discussion, let us focus on the topic, Please address two questions:
1. why do you suppose that the amount of sediment forming deltas ALL around the globe, indicate a young age and hinder the validity of 120 million year old continent?
2. Why do you suppose that there is no trail of sediment from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to the mouth of Amazon, nor Congo River?
Thank you.

[_sabotage_]

Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat. God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

[hotfire]

why should there be a trail of sediment across the ocean floor? continents dont float on top of water dumping sediment over their edge onto the ocean floor like an overfilled dumptruck would leak a dirt trail while it drove down the road...

[Metsfanmax]

Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat.

So you don't have a problem with cannibalism then? What exactly does respecting life mean to you?

God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

I'm just a little lost on what you're advocating. Could you give a specific example of how our study of the natural universe would be improved by 'observing God closely'?

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

I don't really know what you mean by calling me an environmentalist. I think that humans and other sentient species are in danger of living in an environment that is progressively less and less hospitable to them, and this concerns me. (It also concerns me that people breed animals for the sole purpose of eating them, as this is a resource-intensive process that makes much less sense than just eating the plants to begin with.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat. God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

So, definition of God:

He is in the sun, plants, herbivores, and carnivores.
He transfers life-sustaining energy.
He is a teacher (certificate unknown).


What about the "supreme being" of Hinduism? That's pretty much everywhere as well.

1. How can you tell if you're praising a Hindu concept or a Judeo-Christian/sabotagian concept?

2. I transferred life-sustaining potential energy to the plants outside (compost). Am I God? or am I one-third God?

2b. I forget my random lecture on how the human body breaks down food in order to create energy, (I think ATP is involved--hory shit, it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... y/atp.html).

Therefore, ATP is God, or two-thirds God, right?

3. Being a teacher doesn't really make one God--unless you want to apply that to all teachers, or specify how exactly GOd, the teacher, is different from the other teachers.

Then there's: "is God teaching, or are you imposing your beliefs on a process, which you then label as, "ah, God is teaching me." Aren't you just teaching yourself, or learning from everyday happenings?

For example, reading about ATP has taught me much. ATP is a teacher; therefore, ATP is God--except in the Sun. That's the ATP-God off-limits zone.

[AndyDufresne]

Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat. God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

show

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Mets,

Respecting life is recognizing something's function and making the best use of it in all the things we can consider.

Letting Monsanto cover the world in roundup and then monopolizing our seeds does not appear to "observe God closely" as we would see we are messing with his natural balance. Observing how God enables plants to excel allows us to green the deserts, live in comfort from the land and energy he provides us, to make suitable habitats for our animals and us with minimum labor to ourselves, so that life may flourish and we may enjoy its abundance. So that all may flourish and enjoy its abundance for abundance was the gift of God and scarcity a tool of deceit.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets,

Respecting life is recognizing something's function and making the best use of it in all the things we can consider.

Letting Monsanto cover the world in roundup and then monopolizing our seeds does not appear to "observe God closely" as we would see we are messing with his natural balance. Observing how God enables plants to excel allows us to green the deserts, live in comfort from the land and energy he provides us, to make suitable habitats for our animals and us with minimum labor to ourselves, so that life may flourish and we may enjoy its abundance. So that all may flourish and enjoy its abundance for abundance was the gift of God and scarcity a tool of deceit.

I realize we're getting really off topic here, but unless someone objects let's carry this through. You say we should make the best use of something's function. We know that humans digest plants well, and can live a healthy life eating an entirely plant-based diet. Yet we largely feed many of these plants to animals, so that we can then eat the animals; in doing so, we lose up to 90% of the plants we originally grew, because it takes energy just to keep those animals alive until you slaughter them. If we stopped growing animals just to eat them, we could make better (more efficient) use of the plants we grow. Also, we'd need to grow much less, therefore restoring some balance to the world. Doesn't that sound like a win all around?

[_sabotage_]

Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat. God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

So, definition of God:

He is in the sun, plants, herbivores, and carnivores.
He transfers life-sustaining energy.
He is a teacher (certificate unknown).


What about the "supreme being" of Hinduism? That's pretty much everywhere as well.

1. How can you tell if you're praising a Hindu concept or a Judeo-Christian/sabotagian concept?

2. I transferred life-sustaining potential energy to the plants outside (compost). Am I God? or am I one-third God?

2b. I forget my random lecture on how the human body breaks down food in order to create energy, (I think ATP is involved--hory shit, it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... y/atp.html).

Therefore, ATP is God, or two-thirds God, right?

3. Being a teacher doesn't really make one God--unless you want to apply that to all teachers, or specify how exactly GOd, the teacher, is different from the other teachers.

Then there's: "is God teaching, or are you imposing your beliefs on a process, which you then label as, "ah, God is teaching me." Aren't you just teaching yourself, or learning from everyday happenings?

For example, reading about ATP has taught me much. ATP is a teacher; therefore, ATP is God--except in the Sun. That's the ATP-God off-limits zone.

God is all energy. All matter is composed of energy and will revert to energy.

God is your vessel and your soul can sense every vibration of God when you praise him. You know when you have acted against God whatever your religion.

Your body and without and within are God, your soul is yours. You are deciding to compost, and are enabled through the tools of God to do so.

The energy that creates the food, creates the environment for it, creates your ability to acquire it so that your soul may have a room in God's mansion are all God's. It's your choice to recognize his room or denounce it as someone else's.

God allows us to learn through example. Do I have to to do the Bruce Lee is Chinese, my wife is Chinese therefore my wife is Bruce Lee to answer this question?

God is the best teacher as he allowed his energy to burst forth in an ordered way. Follow the order and it will work for you, work against it and it will topple when it fails to obey the laws.

[mrswdk]

Why is water wet?

[_sabotage_]

Mets,

It's correct according to how we conduct agriculture these days. We get a poor product that leads a poor existence and causes a poor diet.

On the other hand, these animals can be (should be) incorporated into a much healthier system that is better for the individual, environment, animal and society. For example, I'm building a zero energy greenhouse, the run-off can be collected to feed a pond of fish from the nutrients, grow plants which filter the water and allow the water to be used further along. The fish can then feed ducks and at the point when the system cannot sustain the duck population, they can be selectively harvested. All of this adds to the general abundance but were the ducks to run wild like the cows in India, then the ducks override the natural environment as can be seen with herd cycles.

If we don't harvest the ducks we negatively effect the energy cycle, and it is at this point that humans may intervene. We have gained the knowledge by observing God's ways and applied it to our benefit.

[mrswdk]

Why is it okay for you to kill God's creations? Who gave you the right to choose what is allowed to live and what dies?