Originally posted by MexicoAre you speaking about me? Since we have been in other threads
Yea this came mainly from the insults and rudeness he was tossing about in another thread, just got a little frustrated. Petty I know, but it's tough when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point and instead asks another inane question.
As to the other bit I still think you should read some of your own postings........
and I have been asking you to clarify points? You find that rude?
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionI was thinking about this post, I believe I have to concede your point
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?
I was not clear. I thought when I posted the scriptures that led me
to my beliefs that would have made it plain what I was saying, but
after thinking about it, your right, I'm wrong, sorry I should have been
clearer.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionso what you're saying is you are not tolerant enough to akkow KJ or anyone else their right to believe what you call BS, in peace?
Go back to page 2 of this thread. Read my 2 short posts. Then come back and apologize to me. If you're going to step up and defend KJ, you should at least know what you're talking about.
Edit: If you choose not to read the few other posts that I've made in this thread, then Mexico's post above about leaving "Goddunnit" types alone has always been my ...[text shortened]... eve it." It's when he tries to justify it with some bit of science that I call BS.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am no less tolerant than you for not letting me hold KJ's feet to the fire in peace.
so what you're saying is you are not tolerant enough to akkow KJ or anyone else their right to believe what you call BS, in peace?
Why has my line of questioning in particular struck a nerve with you? I am more polite than some on this thread, and the questions that I have asked are very simple. Do you have something to contribute that is pertinent to the topic?
As I made plain long before you first chastised me, I do not argue against a literal Noah's Flood interpretation if the literalist is content to remain at "Goddunnit so there." Discussing such topics with that sort is quite boring. It's like arguing with an programmed robot. There are only two operations going on in their head: Goddunnit or Does Not Compute!
On the other hand, if a literalist chooses to stray from a simple "Goddunnit" and try to show how a literal flood could be consistent with the world we see around us absent God-magic, then when the mood strikes me I will challenge them. After all, if one can, with a straight face, say that T-Rex is optimally designed for a vegan diet, then they should be challenged. Actually, it's probably the best favor that I can offer them. That's why persistent, patient members like Twhitehead and Vistesd are so great. When they see you acting stupidly, they offer you a gentle heads up.
Originally posted by MexicoYour point? There are organs and so on that handle meat drastically
But the organs and dentition and metabolism required for eating meat are drastically different from predatory and no predatory land animals..... Thus the changes after the got off the ark would have to be very drastic. And furthermore they'd have to occour in a pretty short space of time to generate a new stable eco system. Meaning your "Vegan" Lions and pant ...[text shortened]... and Tigers went from Veganisim to predation in the space of a single generation?????????
differently, does that mean they cannot handle plants, or that they
simply handle they differently?
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydThere are some people here who are here not to debate but to insult
so what you're saying is you are not tolerant enough to akkow KJ or anyone else their right to believe what you call BS, in peace?
and demean, others actually have a point to make and sometimes get
a little testy doing it. This format brings it out of people, I don’t know
why people choose to behave the way they do here, I doubt many of
them would act as nasty in person, I at least hope not. We can
disagree without being disagreeable, but some handle disagreements
as justification to level personal attacks, hopefully they are not like
that in life with the people they live with. All in all there are only
a very small handful of people here I simply hate seeing post, more
times than not it goes in waves good discussions and not so good.
I wish I could say I am above the nasty behavior here, but I get
caught up in it too, so it makes it easier to over look it in others some
times, others times it drags me into it too, it happens.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayCows don't have blue prints. Cows weren't designed.
No, did you see the blue prints during the design phase, did you get
a peek at the proof of concept during the design meetings?
🙂
Kelly
Why didn't cows become carnivorous when sin was introduced, and ONLY animals with digestive systems able to digest meat started the bloody path?
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ is right. I frequently become agitated in this forum. That's another reason why I usually avoid Spirituality anymore, but alas Noah's Ark dragged me back in . . .
There are some people here who are here not to debate but to insult
and demean, others actually have a point to make and sometimes get
a little testy doing it. This format brings it out of people, I don’t know
why people choose to behave the way they do here, I doubt many of
them would act as nasty in person, I at least hope not. We can
disagree withou ...[text shortened]... to over look it in others some
times, others times it drags me into it too, it happens.
Kelly
But I can proudly say that I've never fallen as low as no1!
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you maintaining that carnivores are not designed as carnivores? That they could be vegetarians with only minor modifications?
Your point? There are organs and so on that handle meat drastically
differently, does that mean they cannot handle plants, or that they
simply handle they differently?
Kelly
Do you claim that the speed of the cheater (and the speed of its prey) has nothing to do with its need to catch its food, but was designed by God for some other unknown purpose (race day in Eden perhaps?).
Or do you simply not realize just how specialized most carnivores (and their prey) really are. The difference between a squirrel and a bat (a change you claimed was impossible) pales in comparison.
Originally posted by serigadoYou know they were not designed, impressive. I mean if that is
Cows don't have blue prints. Cows weren't designed.
Why didn't cows become carnivorous when sin was introduced, and ONLY animals with digestive systems able to digest meat started the bloody path?
a factual statement or a belief on your part, which is it?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe differences between dead dirt and bat and squirrel is even more
Are you maintaining that carnivores are not designed as carnivores? That they could be vegetarians with only minor modifications?
Do you claim that the speed of the cheater (and the speed of its prey) has nothing to do with its need to catch its food, but was designed by God for some other unknown purpose (race day in Eden perhaps?).
Or do you simply no ...[text shortened]... fference between a squirrel and a bat (a change you claimed was impossible) pales in comparison.
so.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionI enjoy my disagreements with you and no1, some times not as much
KJ is right. I frequently become agitated in this forum. That's another reason why I usually avoid Spirituality anymore, but alas Noah's Ark dragged me back in . . .
But I can proudly say that I've never fallen as low as no1!
as others. 🙂
Kelly
