"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

koth wrote: »

Originally Posted by koth
why did humans become meat eaters after the fall?
Humans didn't become meat eaters until after the Flood.

why were pigs, cows, sheep and many other animals punished for mans mistakes by becoming their food?
They were punished by death and disease along with the rest of Creation ... because Creation was designed for Mankind and s/he had sovereignty over it ... so Mankind and all he surveyed was therefore afflicted by the Fall. These creatures didn't become food for Man until after The Flood,
Gen 9:2-3
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.

how was there enough animals that the food supply didn't get exhausted seeing as sexual reproduction in the garden of edendidn't occur?
Sexual reproduction did occur from the very start ...
Gen 1:28-30
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

how did the human body deal with such a radical change in diet so easily?
The dietary requirement for meat was a necessity, such was the degeneration of the environment and Mankind after The Flood.

why did lions change their diet so radically?
It wasn't that radical ... and hungry Lions will still eat vegetable matter if they have to.

how did their food supply also not exhaust itself?
Reproduction.

.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They didn't become meat eaters until after the Flood.

And you base still statement on what exactly?

They were punished by death and disease along with the rest of Creation ... because Creation was designed for Mankind and s/he had sovereignty over it ... so Mankind and all he surveyed was therefore afflicted by the Fall. These creatures didn't become food for Man until after The Flood,
Gen 9:2-3
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.

so what did the animals and humans feed on while on the ark?

Sexual reproduction did occur from the very start ...
Gen 1:28-30
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

it would take years, possibly decades, for enough animals to be around to be a large enough quantity not to run out due to demand.

The dietary requirement for meat was a necessity, such was the degeneration of the environment and Mankind after The Flood.

If the degeneration removed so much plant life, how did the animals that required plant life survive.

It wasn't that radical ... and hungry Lions will still eat vegetable matter if they have to.

not enough that would survive on it. so yes, it was a radical change.

Reproduction.

That doesn't answer the supply and demand requirements for all the animals and humans.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And you still have to show up Robin with your awesome knowledge of Kinds.

Yea ... it's a whopper!!:D

J C

koth wrote: »

And you base still statement on what exactly?
The Word of God in Genesis 9:2-3.


so what did the animals and humans feed on while on the ark?
Stored Grain and fodder.

it would take years, possibly decades, for enough animals to be around to be a large enough quantity not to run out due to demand.
... why? ... the entire World was available to grow food.

If the degeneration removed so much plant life, how did the animals that required plant life survive.
The degeneration of Humans required supplementation of their diet with meat.

That doesn't answer the supply and demand requirements for all the animals and humans.
... a combination of stored food initially, plant food grown shortly after the Flood and meat from animals over the years afterwards provided Human Food in the aftermath of the Flood.

.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The Word of God in Genesis 9:2-3.

I was hoping for something factual.

Stored Grain and fodder.

So we now have an ark that had two of every creature, and enough grain and fodder to last a year? There isn't a ship in existence today that is large enough for the task!

... why? ... the entire World was available to grow food.

Not instantly after the flood subsided. First of all, the land would be heavily salted, which would make it very difficult to grow crops.

The degeneration of Humans required supplementation of their diet with meat.

you didn't answer the question, I'll repeat it.

If the degeneration removed so much plant life, how did the animals that required plant life survive?

... a combination of stored food initially, plant food grown shortly after the Flood and meat from animals over the years afterwards provided Human Food in the aftermath of the Flood.

No way could noah build and stock such an ark. Plus most grain would spoil, before the year was over. And where did they get fresh water from?

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And you still have to show up Robin with your awesome knowledge of Kinds.

I think JC's doing just fine

Mr. Boo

I think JC sounds ridiculous. (this may be followed by some criticism of people of independent enough thought to not believe in the stories in the bible, of course)

The people asking for explainations of your assertions have already shown that they do not believe the bible is anything more than a selection of moral tales to educate and frighten the ignorant masses. Thankfully people in this country have finally stuck their heads above the parapet and seen the truth, or at least started searching for their own truth.

You can find quotations in the bible to prove/disprove practically anything, choosing to take it as literal and/or metaphorical as you see fit. The "good book" even famously contradict itself.

But I think people want empirical evidence. The type of evidence being gathered by scientists eager for a credible answer to life's mysteries. Call us blasphemers, non-believers, the damned; but we are just open-mindedly asking for proof. The burden of proof lies with the proposer.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Yea ... it's a whopper!!:D

So you're working on that list now then?
Any chance of a sneak peek?

Genghiz Cohen

Any minute now...

Sarky

He'll probably say something like "The list is all around you, every day! Look in the mirror or the zoo! THERE'S your list!"

Or is that Dead One? It's so hard to keep track, the waffle just sort of blurs together after a while...

Mistress 69

oops wrong thread

Galvasean

Mistress 69 wrote: »

oops wrong thread

You'll never leave!!!!!!!!!!!! :pac:

housetypeb

Sarky wrote: »

He'll probably say something like "The list is all around you, every day! Look in the mirror or the zoo! THERE'S your list!"

Or is that Dead One? It's so hard to keep track, the waffle just sort of blurs together after a while...

We have the son-JC-and the ghost-Dead One- posting here,all we need is the father to make up the mythical trinity. Speaking of myths, there was some speculation that JC and Dead One were one and the same but I think that has been disproved using science.

himnextdoor

housetypeb wrote: »

We have the son-JC-and the ghost-Dead One- posting here,all we need is the father to make up the mythical trinity. Speaking of myths, there was some speculation that JC and Dead One were one and the same but I think that has been disproved using science.

With the caveat that science might be wrong.*




*WARNING: May contain nuts.

alcomoholic

gents what song is that playing on the website?
i understand it's ennio moricone, but what song?
thanks

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

You'll never leave!!!!!!!!!!!! :pac:

Kind of like the Hotel California..... bit of a revolving avatar...:cool:

J C

More icons of evolution AKA 'missing links' that have 'bit the dust':-

The Tiktaalik was supposed to be the link between water and land-based creatures.
It was vigorously promoted by evolutionists as being the 375 million (evolutionist) years old extinct transitional link that was on its way to becoming the first four-legged land vertebrate.
Several well preserved footprints made by tetrapods were subsequently found in Poland in rock 'dated' at 18 million (evolutionist) years 'older' than the Tiktaalik rocks and so Tiktaalik has joined Coelacanth the Fish and 'Lucy' the Ape as former 'transitional fossils' that have turned out to be 'in transit' to nowhere.

Similarly, Pakicetus or 'Pakistan Whale' was the name given to the top of a skull, two lower jaw fragments and a few teeth and it was duly proclaimed in 1983 to be the transition between land mammals and Whales. Many years later, when other post-cranial bones were found, it was discovered to be an entirely land-based mammal .. and the molecuar genetic evidence show Hippos (and not mesonychids) to be the closest genetically to Whales.
... and yet many Evolutionists still cling to a belief that Pakicetus was an ancestor of the Whale, because of design similarities in its inner ear structure!!!

Our Intelligent Designing God truly reigns.

May the peace and blessing of Jesus Christ be with you all.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

More icons of evolution AKA 'missing links' that have 'bit the dust':-

The Tiktaalik was supposed to be the link between water and land-based creatures.
It was vigorously promoted by evolutionists as being the 375 million (evolutionist) years old extinct transitional link that was on its way to becoming the first four-legged land vertebrate.
Several well preserved footprints made by tetrapods were subsequently found in Poland in rock 'dated' at 18 million (evolutionist) years 'older' than the Tiktaalik rocks and so Tiktaalik has joined Coelacanth the Fish and 'Lucy' the Ape as former 'transitional fossils' that have turned out to be 'in transit' to nowhere.

So they found a four legged vertebrate than pre-dates what they thought to be the first four-legged land vertebrate. How does that disprove evolution? It actually just shows that it takes a very long time to occur and that it has been happening longer than previously thought.

Similarly, Pakicetus or 'Pakistan Whale' was the name given to the top of a skull, two lower jaw fragments and a few teeth and it was duly proclaimed in 1983 to be the transition between land mammals and Whales. Many years later, when other post-cranial bones were found, it was discovered to be an entirely land-based mammal .. and the molecuar genetic evidence show Hippos (and not mesonychids) to be the closest genetically to Whales.
... and yet many Evolutionists still cling to a belief that Pakicetus was an ancestor of the Whale, because of design similarities in its inner ear structure!!!

What point are you making here? it definitely isn't anything disproving evolution. If anything, it shows that scientific research is constantly working and refining things based on new evidence. The same can't be said about creationism.

Our Intelligent Designing God truly reigns.

not very intelligent if so many species are now extinct.

May the peace and blessing of Jesus Christ be with you all.:)

And Mariska Hargitay to you

J C

koth wrote: »

So they found a four legged vertebrate than pre-dates what they thought to be the first four-legged land vertebrate. How does that disprove evolution? It actually just shows that it takes a very long time to occur and that it has been happening longer than previously thought.

It shows that there isn't a single Evolutionist story that is more than 10 years old that is still intact ... yet most of these stories still live on in the mythology of Evolution ... and are routinely 'trotted out' by faith-filled Evolutionists as if they are true!!!:)

koth wrote: »

What point are you making here? it definitely isn't anything disproving evolution. If anything, it shows that scientific research is constantly working and refining things based on new evidence. The same can't be said about creationism.

It shows that there is no unambiguous repeatably verifiable evidence (or indeed even basic logic) for the idea that both Humans and Pondslime had a Pondslime common ancestor ... a four year-old could have told you that ...
... but instead the Evolutionists want to tell all four year olds that they are descended from Pondslime over billions of years ... just like Pondslime is also descended from Pondslime over billions of years.
It also shows that Evolutionists now believe that Pakicetus was an ancestor of the Whale, because of design similarities in its inner ear structure!!! Evolutionists citing common design as an evolutionary criterion ... while rejecting the Designer who created the common design is quite ironic indeed!!!:D:eek:
I guess reality will out no matter how long or how hard you try to deny it!!!

koth wrote: »

not very intelligent if so many species are now extinct.

Very intelligent ... and very gracious ... the God who created Mankind ... and gave them the free-will to love or hate Him ... to be evil or good ... to be Saved or not.
... and the reason that death of individuals and species entered the World is because one man and one woman chose to believe Satan's lies and to reject God's truth ... and the rest is our sorry history!!!

The good news is that everybody can choose to accept God's Salvation ... and the rest will be eternal bliss.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
May the peace and blessing of Jesus Christ be with you all.

koth
And Mariska Hargitay to you

... and I'm sure that Mariska Hargitay, being a Roman Catholic herself, would also bless you in the name of Jesus Christ.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

and very gracious ... the God who created Mankind ... and gave them the free-will to love or hate Him ... to be evil or good ... to be Saved or not.
... and the reason that death of individuals and species entered the World is because one man and one woman chose to believe Satan's lies and to reject God's truth

If he created humans in full knowledge that some of them will question his badly written, logically impossible and down right stupid story, then he is not benevolent

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It shows that there isn't a single Evolutionist story that is more than 10 years old that is still intact ... yet most of these stories still live on in the mythology of Evolution ... and are routinely trotted out by wide-eyed, faith-filled Evolutionists as if they are true!!!:)

Yeah, I forgot about that global collapse of the medicine industry that happened last year.:rolleyes:

It shows that there is no unambiguous repeatably verifiable evidence (or indeed even basic logic) for the idea that both Humans and Pondslime had a Pondslime common ancestor ... a four year-old could have told you that ...
... but instead the Evolutionists want to tell all four year olds that they are descended from Pondslime over billions of years ... just like Pondslime is also descended from Pondslime over billions of years.

Actually there's a wealth of evidence, but you continually ignore it and then claim there is no evidence.

Very intelligent ... and very gracious ... the God who created Mankind ... and gave them the free-will to love or hate Him ... to be evil or good ... to be Saved or not.
... and the reason that death of individuals and species entered the World is because one man and one woman chose to believe Satan's lies and to reject God's truth ... and the rest is our sorry history!!!

So extinction of a species is the result of a grudge between a deity and a couple who ate an apple? yeah, that's believable:rolleyes:

The good news is that everybody can choose to accept God's Salvation ... and the rest will be eternal bliss.

thats just wishful thinking based on your religious beliefs, not evidence;)

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

If he created humans in full knowledge that some of them will question his badly written, logically impossible and down right stupid story, then he is not benevolent

He gives you (and everybody else) the freedom to reject or to accept His free gift of Salvation ... I'd say that is the ultimate in benevolence.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

I'd say that is the ultimate in benevolence.

Creating people in full knowledge that they WOULD question him and end up in hell is malevolence

While creating a perfect mankind, incapable of sin in his image all destined for Heaven would be the ultimate in benevolence

Penn

J C wrote: »

He gives you (and everybody else) the freedom to reject or to accept His free gift of Salvation ... I'd say that is the ultimate in benevolence.

... and if we don't accept, we spend the rest of eternity in Hell with no freedom

Reminds me of 'Cake or Death'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

J C

koth wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot about that global collapse of the medicine industry that happened last year.:rolleyes:

What has progress in medicine got to do with reversals in Evolution?

koth wrote: »

Actually there's a wealth of evidence, but you continually ignore it and then claim there is no evidence.

... you continually claim that this evidence exists ... and then dramatically fail to provide any!!!

... or else you provide examples of NS of pre-existing CFSI ... and claim that selection can produce the CFSI to be selected. It's like standing on your shoe laces ... and then claiming that this is where the energy for running comes from!!!:D

koth wrote: »

So extinction of a species is the result of a grudge between a deity and a couple who ate an apple? yeah, that's believable:rolleyes:

They didn't eat an apple ... they rejected God' advice ... and chose to allow Satanic evil into a world that they held sovereignty over, by accepting Satan's invitation to gain the gnosis of evil (superficially clothed in the knowledge of good)

koth wrote: »

thats just wishful thinking based on your religious beliefs, not evidence;)

You are correct, that we can only be Saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

Creating people in full knowledge that they WOULD question him and end up in hell is malevolence

While creating a perfect mankind, incapable of sin in his image all destined for Heaven would be the ultimate in benevolence

A perfect Mankind was created ... and given perfect freedom ... which they chose to use for evil ends.

A perfect Mankind incapable of sin ... would not be a free Mankind ... they would be little better than God-adoring robots, incapable of doing anything else.

J C

Barrington wrote: »

... and if we don't accept, we spend the rest of eternity in Hell with no freedom

Reminds me of 'Cake or Death'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

Yes, the choice is quite stark indeed.

... but it is still a choice ... and one that is freely made, in both directions, every day.

I don't know why anybody would freely choose to submit themselves to God's perfect justice, rather than His perfect mercy ... but I guess that is one of the reasons why I chose to be Saved.

Why do you continue to freely choose to submit yourself to God's justice ... when you could receive His perfect mercy?

Penn

J C wrote: »

Why do you continue to freely choose to submit yourself to God's justice?

Well, if we continue with the 'Cake or Death' analogy, I'm not choosing death. I don't believe there is any cake. The cake is a lie (:D). I don't believe there is any choice to be made.

God's mercy, or God's justice? I'm not choosing God's justice. I don't believe that there is a God, so I don't believe I have to choose either option.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

A perfect Mankind was created ... and given perfect freedom ... which they chose to use for evil ends.

So what your saying is god created the perfect mankind, IN full knowledge that they would choose evil ( If he is indeed omnipotent ), and then condemn them to hell ?

Sounds like an Evil bastard to me, are we talking about the same God here ?

J C wrote: »

A perfect Mankind incapable of sin ... would not be a free Mankind ... they would be little better than God-adoring robots, incapable of doing anything else.

The inherent dichotomy of religion does not allow freedom, only when you rid yourself of it will you stop being a God-adoring automaton.

Creating a perfect mankind is the only way that god could be benevolent when internal hell is the price for imperfection

Delirium

J C wrote: »

What has progress in medicine got to do with reversals in Evolution?

you're asking how does evidence of evolution prove evolution?

... you continually claim that this evidence exists ... and then dramatically fail to provide any!!!

... or else you provide examples of NS of pre-existing CFSI ... and claim that selection can produce the CFSI to be selected. It's like standing on your shoe laces ... and then claiming that this is where the energy for running comes from!!!:D

I showed you plenty of evidence that shows that evolution occurs, and they you start a butchered version of evolution to argue against the evidence.

They didn't eat an apple ... they rejected God' advice ... and chose to allow Satanic evil into a world that they held sovereignty over, by accepting Satan's invitation to gain the gnosis of evil (superficially clothed in the knowledge of good)

and god allowed all that to happen because he didn't have the patience for his creation that the average parent has for their children.

You are correct, that we can only be Saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

glad to see we both agree you are arguing a position based on no evidence