-snip-
Well, neither one of is animal kingdom, so you have your choice, and I will have mine, neither of which matter.
I do not know much about deep-sea stuff, but I have heard stuff like eating whatever dies higher up, and eating some of the stuff that comes from below, like sulphur oxides and whatnot, is actually quite important to other parts of the major ecosystem. But, if you want to try and argue about it being completely detached from the rest of the planet Earth, I guess I'm not your man. I do not know enough about biology to make assumptions about those parts of Earth's ecosystem.
Well, if engineer making fragile things is a bad one, it is time to kick the collective butt of all the Intel's engineers. Do you hear that, CEO of Intel?
Killing and eating are two different things is my book, but OK. I still do not know what the problem is with animals that can kill men anyway? Again: part of the ecosystem. They all have their role to fulfil, don't they? They are not existing for the sole purpose of try and wipe out the human race for the amusement of God, they are part of the aforementioned equilibrium. But I have to admit, there are animals that are capable of killing us / eating us and we can not eat them.
If you want in-depth analysis of the Biblical texts with hundred - places long bibliography, I think forum posts aren't the way to go. At the very least, Jesus ate fish, so eating animals is no problem with God. Also, again, being eaten is not the sole purpose of all the animals; sustaining humans in various ways is. Yes, part of it is being those dogs that help blind people move around and stuff; they are not eaten by us, and they do not eat us, and yet they are important for us.
If Humankind's purpose it to till the earth, and whatnot, what are the religious beliefs on space travel/colonization?
Does God not matter outside of earth? Is it inherently sinful to leave the planet?
Well, Earth should be interpreted as Universe, since it was the only place created in the seven days when God made everything, at least as far as I know.
Sure. Only while we can not prove either existence or lack of existence of God, we need one assumption in each version: either we assume that there is God, or we assume that there is no God. Thus, Ockham tells us that that both seem equally viable.
That's not quite true.
One necessitates a god, but the other doesn't necessarily exclude a god. What it does exclude is the God from the Bible. Difference there.
Are we still talking about the 'animals exist to sustain mankind' vs 'animals exist for no reason whatsoever' here? Because it is debate so entirely different, it would probably go in other thread, something about philosophy, definition of assumption and stuff like that.