Originally posted by telerionIf you don't want to read what I have written or the text itself, yet you
No, I really don't care that much. But if you're going to try to justify your beliefs with anything other than god-magic, then I'm gonna have something to say. First, let's cut off the dodging right now. Fine, you don't want to include sharks. Obviously fish couldn't survive a massive worldwide flood without some magic, but I'll just let that one drop. ...[text shortened]... : BTW if you don't think sharks originally ate plants, what do you think they ate?
want to complain anyway, you really don't require me or the text just
complain. Just stop bringing me or the text into your complaint since
you are not addressing anything I or it says, you are making it up as
you go.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayReally? Who was it then that wrote this just a couple pages ago?
If you don't want to read what I have written or the text itself, yet you
want to complain anyway, you really don't require me or the text just
complain. Just stop bringing me or the text into your complaint since
you are not addressing anything I or it says, you are making it up as
you go.
Kelly
"As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that!"
It sure seems like you. Whoever wrote it used your account and even signed it Kelly, twice!
Well, if you aren't sure who wrote this, then maybe you can answer this question: Is a shark an animal?
Originally posted by KellyJayBut it's a text that Christians have taken on only many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years after it was written.
No it does not strike me as strange the the Jewish people do not take
the sacred text as literal, when did they ever accept it as is? Even when
God was moving directly in their lives in huge ways there were people
falling away left and right when you read the text.
Kelly
It'd be like someone today taking the Quran and using it as the basis for a new and different religion, and then making claims of it that Islam does not.
Would that not seem strange to you?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, are you admitting that your claims in the past about the restrictions on the extent to which animals can evolve are false?
As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that! The time before
the flood not much was dying due to old age, not much of a chance
to evolve, after the flood things moved along quickly after that.
With respect to a ...[text shortened]... new creatures as if we had to go from a single cell to a whale,
or an oak tree.
Kelly
Kelly
It almost looks as if you read the story of Noah again, realized it conflicted with your previous claims, then changed your beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionYou ever see a land shark, maybe you watch to much SNL?
Really? Who was it then that wrote this just a couple pages ago?
"As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that!"
It sure seems like you. Whoever wrote it used your account and even signed it Kelly, twi ...[text shortened]... aren't sure who wrote this, then maybe you can answer this question: Is a shark an animal?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere did they conflict?
So, are you admitting that your claims in the past about the restrictions on the extent to which animals can evolve are false?
It almost looks as if you read the story of Noah again, realized it conflicted with your previous claims, then changed your beliefs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have claimed in the past that no animal can evolve into a different animal that has new organs or even substantially changed organs.
Where did they conflict?
Kelly
You are now claiming that non-meat eaters evolved into meat eaters.
A number of meat eaters cannot survive without meat, and in fact have specialized organs which are designed specifically for eating and digesting meat.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy should it matter whether they are terrestrial? I guess my last question was too hard for you.
You ever see a land shark, maybe you watch to much SNL?
Kelly
Again, let me remind you of what you wrote:
"As I have said here before, before the flood no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that!"
See the bolded part there? "No animals" means no land animals or sea animals. My question is simply what did sharks eat? Your writing claims that they did not eat other animals, and you have a problem with me inferring from those lines above that they ate plants. Perhaps you think they ate floating rocks? Perhaps they just ate water?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot to mention that for KJ's account to make sense, these animals would have to adapt nearly every aspect of their physiology in one generation! Funny since he's always going on about how it's impossible for on species to evolve into another. If he's right, it should only take a few weeks!
You have claimed in the past that no animal can evolve into a different animal that has new organs or even substantially changed organs.
You are now claiming that non-meat eaters evolved into meat eaters.
A number of meat eaters cannot survive without meat, and in fact have specialized organs which are designed specifically for eating and digesting meat.
Originally posted by telerionSharks were vegan , didn't you learn that?
Why should it matter whether they are terrestrial? I guess my last question was too hard for you.
Again, let me remind you of what you wrote:
"As I have said here before, before the flood [b]no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that!"
...[text shortened]... they ate plants. Perhaps you think they ate floating rocks? Perhaps they just ate water?[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo I'm not suggesting that nore did I ever suggest that. I have
You have claimed in the past that no animal can evolve into a different animal that has new organs or even substantially changed organs.
You are now claiming that non-meat eaters evolved into meat eaters.
A number of meat eaters cannot survive without meat, and in fact have specialized organs which are designed specifically for eating and digesting meat.
said that from the 'kinds' on the ark all the variety came to be, I have
said that before the flood land creature didn't eat meat. The eating
meat changed after the flood. Did they get new organs designed for
meat eating after the flood, I doubt it. I imagine the ones they had
did the work in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionI gave the scripture that I used for that view, had you read it you
Why should it matter whether they are terrestrial? I guess my last question was too hard for you.
Again, let me remind you of what you wrote:
"As I have said here before, before the flood [b]no animals ate each
other, after the flood things changed. The things 'changed' has to do
with man and animals eating one another after that!"
...[text shortened]... they ate plants. Perhaps you think they ate floating rocks? Perhaps they just ate water?[/b]
would have seen it went just for the land creatures. I doubt you can
one way or another my intent or anything else.
Kelly