Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. Fresh meat - for the meat eaters. I don't think canned meat was available in Noah's time. Neither was refrigeration.

Cheers!

You missed the point.

BTW, yes that was just one lion, but Noah just needed two lions that don't eat meat, if your gripe is that the carnivores on the Ark would be seeing red and needed to eat lots of fresh meat to survive.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Just using these supernatural beings to relate to "acceptance" of existence, analogous to events in bible. People once believed these creatures existed, the same way the society during medieval times took the stories in the bible as events that happened as written. We have matured out of that stage.

Cheers!

I'm not the one arguing for the existebelievence of werewolves and vampires, so why put the onus on me to explain them?

 

[Frodo]

Yes. Fresh meat - for the meat eaters. I don't think canned meat was available in Noah's time. Neither was refrigeration.

Cheers!

But as shown, it is not necessary the case that carnivores must eat meat in order to survive.

Another alternative view is that just as God gave permission for Noah and his family to eat meat after the Flood, perhaps it was the same with animals too, though admittedly this is an argument from silence.

 

[Frodo]

Just using these supernatural beings to relate to "acceptance" of existence, analogous to events in bible. People once believed these creatures existed, the same way the society during medieval times took the stories in the bible as events that happened as written. We have matured out of that stage.

Cheers!

Problem is that you are invoking fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[Agoraphobic]

If that's the case, then herbivores can consume meat too - chimpanzees have been observed to hunt and kill monkeys, and some smaller primates do eat insects apart from their usual diet of fruit. But overall, we see felines as carnivores, and they eat meat. I don't think God would order all the meat eaters on board the Ark to turn vegan, Noah would still have to feed the animals their normal diet, and as far as the story goes, all of the world was flooded, so all the butchers were closed for business, Noah would have to look for fresh meat to feed his passengers. The story tellers should have given us the scoop to this part of the story, now they've left us wondering. Oh yes, I forgot, God helped!

Cheers!

But as shown, it is not necessary the case that carnivores must eat meat in order to survive.

Another alternative view is that just as God gave permission for Noah and his family to eat meat after the Flood, perhaps it was the same with animals too, though admittedly this is an argument from silence.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Just thinking laterally.

Cheers!

Problem is that you are invoking fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[Frodo]

If that's the case, then herbivores can consume meat too - chimpanzees have been observed to hunt and kill monkeys, and some smaller primates do eat insects apart from their usual diet of fruit. But overall, we see felines as carnivores, and they eat meat. I don't think God would order all the meat eaters on board the Ark to turn vegan, Noah would still have to feed the animals their normal diet, and as far as the story goes, all of the world was flooded, so all the butchers were closed for business, Noah would have to look for fresh meat to feed his passengers. The story tellers should have given us the scoop to this part of the story, now they've left us wondering. Oh yes, I forgot, God helped!

Cheers!

Another fallacy! Just because A can do B does not therefore mean that B can do A also.

Besides, are chimps herbivores? BTW, many cats and dogs eat commercial cat and dog food, those biscuit pellets kind. Say meat also not entirely right, say not meat also not entirely right. LOL!

BTW, if you read the Bible carefully, ALL animals and humans were vegetarian originally. Noah was allowed to eat meat only after the Flood. For the animals, the Bible is silent on when they were allowed to eat meat so I won't be dogmatic about it. So God did not have to miraculously turn animals to vegan on the Ark, they could well have all been vegan still, and even if not all, they can still be on vegan diet since that was what they were originally created as. So again, no need to troll the Bible story, just read it carefully and make reasonable inferences or conclusions.

 

[Frodo]

Just thinking laterally.

Cheers!

But not critically!:p

 

[Agoraphobic]

All it means is that many animals are omnivorous, just like humans. And among us, meat is favoured over veggies because it is more fulfilling. But this is outside of the threads topic, and not relevant to the discussion.

So the Bible says ALL animals were originally vegetarians? Another fairy tale story! I give the benefit of doubt (or idiocy). Originally vegetarian? How far back does this "original" go? Before the lion evolved into a four legged vertebrate, and was some slimy protozoa that fed on algae? That was probably when it was a vegetarian, but not when it had formed a skeleton and developed its teeth for tearing meat! Fren, the story of the Ark is about God's might and the "goodness" of a man like Noah, and "God" looking out for the good people on Earth, but to take it as an actual event, and justifying all the things in it that happened, is somewhat naïve.

Cheers!

Another fallacy! Just because A can do B does not therefore mean that B can do A also.

Besides, are chimps herbivores? BTW, many cats and dogs eat commercial cat and dog food, those biscuit pellets kind. Say meat also not entirely right, say not meat also not entirely right. LOL!

BTW, if you read the Bible carefully, ALL animals and humans were vegetarian originally. Noah was allowed to eat meat only after the Flood. For the animals, the Bible is silent on when they were allowed to eat meat so I won't be dogmatic about it. So God did not have to miraculously turn animals to vegan on the Ark, they could well have all been vegan still, and even if not all, they can still be on vegan diet since that was what they were originally created as. So again, no need to troll the Bible story, just read it carefully and make reasonable inferences or conclusions.

 

[drifteri]

Agoraphoic,
Have a read of Patrick Marks's article, not that it is highly logical or scientifically sound but to have a good laugh!

Very childish and simpleton, wishy washy, badly crafted to cover the bible fairytale.

http://www.understanding-creationism.com/noahs-flood-animals.html

Patrick is struggling very hard to come out a kind figure that would appear sound, perhaps 2000 kinds on the ark perhaps 16000 and perhaps what?....
Even the Titanic and cruise ship is bigger than the idealized ark, lol!

Different kinds can cross-bred to produce the missing species, lol!

Initially, I want give it a miss. But no regret after reading it , very funny and badly crafted after-injections! Great article for dudes's consumption,but for us to have a laugh ! Definitely cannot make it to any science forum except Church!

But not critically!:p

Critical reading=believing every bible fairytale without questioning!

 

[Frodo]

All it means is that many animals are omnivorous, just like humans. And among us, meat is favoured over veggies because it is more fulfilling. But this is outside of the threads topic, and not relevant to the discussion.

So the Bible says ALL animals were originally vegetarians? Another fairy tale story! I give the benefit of doubt (or idiocy). Originally vegetarian? How far back does this "original" go? Before the lion evolved into a four legged vertebrate, and was some slimy protozoa that fed on algae? That was probably when it was a vegetarian, but not when it had formed a skeleton and developed its teeth for tearing meat! Fren, the story of the Ark is about God's might and the "goodness" of a man like Noah, and "God" looking out for the good people on Earth, but to take it as an actual event, and justifying all the things in it that happened, is somewhat naïve.

Cheers!

Prefer to eat meat does not mean MUST eat meat. So yes, it is irrelevant point.

LOL! You dismiss Bible as fairy tale story simply because it says that man and animals were vegetarian originally, but you bat no eyelid in accepting as fact that evolution says life pop miraculously from nonliving things and somehow evolve all the bodily functions and anatomy to eat plants and meat? Your incredulity is obviously misplaced! And it is a strawman argument for you to suggest that I am somehow working evolutionary ideas into my belief in creationism. You should know by now that I completely reject molecules-to-man evolution. The Bible says God created living things in their mature functioning state to reproduce after their kind. There is simply no way an honest reader can force evolutionary changes over millions of years into those 6 days of creation.

In fact, only the global Flood can explain much of the geological features we see today. Even now secular geologists are again beginning to invoke catastrophism into their models, but they refuse to consider a global catastrophe but propose numerous mini disaster flicks over long periods of time. But one big catastrophe over a short time is enough to explain it.

 

[Frodo]

Agoraphoic,
Have a read of Patrick Marks's article, not that it is highly logical or scientifically sound but to have a good laugh!

Very childish and simpleton, wishy washy, badly crafted to cover the bible fairytale.




Patrick is struggling very hard to come out a kind figure that would appear sound, perhaps 2000 kinds on the ark perhaps 16000 and perhaps what?....
Even the Titanic and cruise ship is bigger than the idealized ark, lol!

Different kinds can cross-bred to produce the missing species, lol!

Initially, I want give it a miss. But no regret after reading it , very funny and badly crafted after-injections! Great article for dudes's consumption,but for us to have a laugh ! Definitely cannot make it to any science forum except Church!



Critical reading=believing every bible fairytale without questioning!

Did you laugh at the belief that nonliving matter can suddenly change into living organism by itself according to evolution? LOL! Critical reading on your part employed? Or just believe the evolutionists without questioning? LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. No way. That's why the bible's version of how we came to be cannot be taken as factual.

Didn't say there was no flood. There must have been dozens, if not hundreds of such incidents, or catastrophes as you call them, including glacier melts, ice age cycles, and such. Just that there was no Ark and Noah.

Cheers!

..................... There is simply no way an honest reader can force evolutionary changes over millions of years into those 6 days of creation.

In fact, only the global Flood can explain much of the geological features we see today. Even now secular geologists are again beginning to invoke catastrophism into their models, but they refuse to consider a global catastrophe but propose numerous mini disaster flicks over long periods of time. But one big catastrophe over a short time is enough to explain it.

 

[Frodo]

Yes. No way. That's why the bible's version of how we came to be cannot be taken as factual.

Didn't say there was no flood. There must have been dozens, if not hundreds of such incidents, or catastrophes as you call them, including glacier melts, ice age cycles, and such. Just that there was no Ark and Noah.

Cheers!

LOL! So you already take evolution as fact? No question at all?

OK, so how many catastrophies did it take to carve the Grand Canyon?

 

[Agoraphobic]

I don't consider myself an evolutionist and do not study it as a subject, I am just an ordinary salesman. But, going by the facts and studies carried out, the theories by this group of scientist present the most logical reasons for me to believe it may have happened. Certainly more logical and persuasive than "God made it."

Fren, again I am not in a position to tell you how many, but going by the scale of the Grand Canyon, it must've been a long long time. And it was more likely carved out by glacial melting and flowing than just a flood. Certainly much more than 6 days. Of course, it may be created by some Jew dropping a penny in a crack and trying to retrieve it.

Cheers!

LOL! So you already take evolution as fact? No question at all?

OK, so how many catastrophies did it take to carve the Grand Canyon?

 

[Frodo]

I don't consider myself an evolutionist and do not study it as a subject, I am just an ordinary salesman. But, going by the facts and studies carried out, the theories by this group of scientist present the most logical reasons for me to believe it may have happened. Certainly more logical and persuasive than "God made it."

Fren, again I am not in a position to tell you how many, but going by the scale of the Grand Canyon, it must've been a long long time. And it was more likely carved out by glacial melting and flowing than just a flood. Certainly much more than 6 days. Of course, it may be created by some Jew dropping a penny in a crack and trying to retrieve it.

Cheers!

LOL! You don't consider yourself an evolutionists yet you basically peddle the evolution story every time without flinching! Basically you just choose to believe the evolutionists, who never observed evolution happening at all. What aspect of nonliving matter suddenly become living thing is logical and makes most sense to you? Don't forget that this violates a basic law of science.

Re the Grand Canyon, you BELIEVE it took a long time simply because of what evolutionists tell you. Mind you, nobody observed it. And it is also a strawman to think that God made it in 6 days. And you would be ignorant of the fact that creationists have written about Mt St Helens in USA which erupted and within a very short time carved out a mini Grand Canyon! And this was observed. So it did not need to be a long time, all you need are the right conditions.

What's more, according to the Havasupai Indians who live in its deep gorges for the past 800 years, the Grand Canyon was formed by way of a recognizable (albeit distorted) version of the world-wide flood of Noah’s day.

See for yourself http://www.grand-canyon-vacation-information.com/havasupai-legend.html

 

[drifteri]

Did you laugh at the belief that nonliving matter can suddenly change into living organism by itself according to evolution? LOL! Critical reading on your part employed? Or just believe the evolutionists without questioning? LOL!

I laugh at the dogmatic belief that dust can turn into life according to fairytale! I also believe it makes most sense to fairytale believers. Hahaha.

 

[Frodo]

I laugh at the dogmatic belief that dust can turn into life according to fairytale! I also believe it makes most sense to fairytale believers. Hahaha.

Failed DIVA is infected by Stinkie liao...mental problem showing....and making fun of his own atheist beliefs! LOL!!!

 

[Agoraphobic]

My choice came to be after viewing different presentations, documents, videos, and documentaries. The details given by researchers and scientists are more convincing and logical than the source that said "God created them..." mainly because it does not elaborate how he (or she) did it, but by his word. That sounds like magic to me. I am not a scientist and am unable to explain how life appeared, but am convinced that if the physical and chemical conditions are within a certain favourable range, and if at that time, some energy source (like lightning) provides a kickstart, then the simple molecules may start to form chains of protein molecules, grow, and form into some kind of living organism. That is why life (as we know it) is not found on the moon where there is no atmosphere, no oxygen, no water. We do not yet know whether other forms of non-carbon life can form in other environments. Our species have only just begun to explore these issues.

The epic scale of the Grand Canyon suggests that it was formed over millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of years, way before humans appeared on this planet, let alone settle down in the New World. Nobody can say for sure how it was formed but I suspect that glacial movements was likely the greatest contributor, besides water and wind. The story in the attachment is native folklore, told in human terms, akin to the stories in the bible, from a human perspective.


Cheers!

LOL! You don't consider yourself an evolutionists yet you basically peddle the evolution story every time without flinching! Basically you just choose to believe the evolutionists, who never observed evolution happening at all. What aspect of nonliving matter suddenly become living thing is logical and makes most sense to you? Don't forget that this violates a basic law of science.

Re the Grand Canyon, you BELIEVE it took a long time simply because of what evolutionists tell you. Mind you, nobody observed it. And it is also a strawman to think that God made it in 6 days. And you would be ignorant of the fact that creationists have written about Mt St Helens in USA which erupted and within a very short time carved out a mini Grand Canyon! And this was observed. So it did not need to be a long time, all you need are the right conditions.

What's more, according to the Havasupai Indians who live in its deep gorges for the past 800 years, the Grand Canyon was formed by way of a recognizable (albeit distorted) version of the world-wide flood of Noah’s day.

See for yourself http://www.grand-canyon-vacation-information.com/havasupai-legend.html

 

[Frodo]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140730093827.htm

These suckers have not changed in 53 million years?????

Evolutionists should wise up to more of more of such anomalies and begin to seriously think that the Biblical timeline makes more sense.