Bible is pretty weirdly intresting....

[cmdavid]

If anybody in here actually cares to try and understand, and is willing to listen w/ an open mind.. try reading a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's about a Yale Law School graduate, who was determined to prove the bible was false and made up. In the book he interviews a bunch of esteemed professors/researchers/anthropoligists/historians.. both christian and not... you'd be surprised the evidence that exists that proves the reliability of the bible compared to those of other historical documents which are not even challenged to be reliable or true or authentic...

 

[JamesM3M5]

Man! I go mow the lawn and come back to this?!?!? Go home and keep my dignity? Why do all of you people think you're 100% right?? I read Hawking about 5 years ago. It was good, but does not explain the fundamental questions of Where did the matter come from? and Where did the Laws of Physics come from?

I can see I'm arguing to a bunch of brick walls, here. No one against me has opened their ears once since I began. I was going to answer every single one of your questions, but now I can see that it will be a huge investment of time with no gain. None of you will believe anything I say, anyway. I have to prove everything I reference to you, because none of you believe me. I have not lied to any of you, either.

I will try to answer all of your points, but this is a losing battle. I am a subscriber here, and I have no intentions of wasting the money I spent. Like Arnold said, I'll be back.....

Here's one point to ponder about the universe. Where is the missing 90% of all matter? Current calculations of expansion, red shift, etc show that the universe should be 10x more massive than we have observed. Where's the rest of the universe hiding?

JamesM

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: rahvinYou aren't argueing facts your spouting garbage. For example you mentioned the Second law of thermodynamics and simultaneously proved that you don't know anything about thermodynamics or reasonable scientific inquiry...

What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics? Everything tends toward disorder, AKA entropy. If you consider the solar system as a closed system (there's nothing else for a long way), the sun provides energy to the planets. The sun is burning itself out.

How about everything?

Its very very convinient to consider the solar system as a closed system, but why not consider the UNIVERSE instead? Einstein's theory of relativity implies that the universe started from a single point some time in the past. it has been confirmed by Hubble and by cosmic background radiation. Evidence of singularities (black holes) has also been found.

Knowing that, imagine the universe moments after the big bang. The universe at that time was in a state of HIGH ORDER. It was smooth and regular with only minor fluctuations. Look at the universe today, it is in a state of disorderd. you see a galaxy there, a huge emply space, another galaxy here etc. When you consider the universe as a whole, it is in a higher state of disorder now that it was in the past. While the universe is expanding, the second law will hold true. Once (or if) it starts contracting, then the second law will not hold true, as the universe will be moving to a state of higher order.

The following idea is one I read a few days ago in "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. His arguments are logical and supported by evidence. Your arguments? Well, like everything else that you have posted here, they're nothing but a load of crap. Drivel poorly disguised as 'science'. I should not have even bothered posting the above, but oh well.

Go troll somewhere else please.

I read that book too long ago to remember everything in it. Hawking does not believe in God, so you can take his arguments to be skewed as much as mine are.

I would argue that the universe is more ordered now than at time zero. If it was a homogenous blend of matter and space, then it is unordered. Now it is extremely clumpy, with an uneven distribution of matter. There are 92 naturally occurring elements, where before it was a mix of subatomic particles. Now the matter is collected into stars and galaxies with humongous, and uneven amounts of space in between.

If you put ingredients to a banana shake in a blender, it is ordered at the beginning. You can remove the primary ingredients if you have to--milk, scoop of ice cream, and chunks of banana. Once you turn it on, it will become homogeneous. Now, pick out the bananas. You can't, right? That, I would consider a state of lower order than one of 3 definite ingredients of milk, ice cream, and bananas. No?

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
There is also overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The moon is moving away at a rate of 4 inches per year. 1.5 billion years ago, it would be touching the Earth's surface. 100 million years ago, the tides would have been enormous, drowning everything on Earth twice daily.

The oceans are getting saltier. If they were fresh water at the beginning, they only have enough salt in them to be a few thousand years old.

The oldest living organism is a pine tree in Southern CA. It is 4300 years old.

The largest stalactite and stalagmite formations can easily be reproduced in less than 5000 years. There are 50" long stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922.

The Sahara Desert is expanding. It is has been found to be less than 4300 years old.

There is only enough sediment in the ocean floors to indicate a few thousand years of erosion.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It cannot be more than 25,000 years old. The Earth's magnetic field is in its crust, not in the molten center. The magnetic field cannot reverse.

The planets are cooling down. Even if they only lost 0.001 K per year, that means they would have been 1 million Kelvin hotter 1 billion years ago.

say for the sake of arguement i agree that the earth is say 5k years old. so god magically said pow and in a couple days the earth was there! then he made two people and they dissed him by eating an apple. and for that he cursed them to a life of suffering, being that he is an all loving and knowing god. what a sadistic bastard eh? oh yea add in some natural disasters to kill off innocents, wonderful! not a god worth worshiping by any standard.

God only found favor in one man and his family, Noah, which is why He sent the flood so that all living would perish.

You can't blame a wrecked car on the creator. People were created with free will. Adam disobeyed God and brought sin and death into the world. According to the Bible, there was no death until Adam sinned. In fact, all animals and humans were vegetarian until after the flood.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
Man! I go mow the lawn and come back to this?!?!? Go home and keep my dignity? Why do all of you people think you're 100% right?? I read Hawking about 5 years ago. It was good, but does not explain the fundamental questions of Where did the matter come from? and Where did the Laws of Physics come from?

I can see I'm arguing to a bunch of brick walls, here. No one against me has opened their ears once since I began. I was going to answer every single one of your questions, but now I can see that it will be a huge investment of time with no gain. None of you will believe anything I say, anyway. I have to prove everything I reference to you, because none of you believe me. I have not lied to any of you, either.

I will try to answer all of your points, but this is a losing battle. I am a subscriber here, and I have no intentions of wasting the money I spent. Like Arnold said, I'll be back.....

Here's one point to ponder about the universe. Where is the missing 90% of all matter? Current calculations of expansion, red shift, etc show that the universe should be 10x more massive than we have observed. Where's the rest of the universe hiding?

JamesM

1. Asking you to back up all the drivel you've posted? What a radical idea!!!

2. Perhaps you could tell me where youg god came from then?

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Show me, then. If I am wrong, show me. Correct me. Enlighten me.

Pay me and I'll do it. Otherwise the obligation is on you to prove each and every single allegation you wish you make.

What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics?

First off you don't even know what the second law says. Second you don't know what assumptions it makes and third you don't even understand the concept. Easy isn't it, you are clueless as I said before. You want to prove that life violates the second law of thermo state the second law of thermo (the real one) and all the assumptions that law makes then go on to show that each assumption applies in your case. After that I will show you how you screwed up because you don't actually understand what the second law is discussing.

Evolution is just that lie. If you actually read what is in your college textbooks, you would see that they have no idea now the first cell or first self-replicating life forms came about.

Evolution isn't concered with abiogenesis, they are different theories and evolution is exclusive of how life started. If YOU had actually read college text books on biology you would understand that point. See much like thermo you don't have a clue what the science is that backs the idea and so you attack mindlessly things you feel are confrontational to your own beliefs.

Your attacks on science to validate your own religion are the equivalent of us discussing god and you walking out and shooting the neighbors dog. It's pointless and only serves to show YOUR ignorance.

As for the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your example was one of converting matter into energy, right? If the atomic bomb/nuclear fission disproved the first law, why do we still study it? I will have to find the passages that state the universe came from quite literally "nothing" according to the author.

Energy = Mass more or less. Education is a good idea if you want to actually debate scientific points.

You have demonstrated that you cannot debate constructively in this thread, so I will ignore you until you show you can. There are others here with real points.

 

[Red Dawn]

You have demonstrated that you cannot debate constructively in this thread, so I will ignore you until you show you can. There are others here with real points.

Translation= You are kicking my ass so I will discount your points as ludicrous because I can't rebut them

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: DougK62
Posts like this are what give creationists a bad rap. I'm all for evolution and an "old earth", but I certainly don't look down on the creationists....until one posts bunk like this.

JamesM3M5 - do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or are you just spitting out things you read in passing at a webpage?

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were fresh water at the beginning, they only have enough salt in them to be a few thousand years old.

So it's just INCONCEIVABLE that salt can be removed from water?

The oldest living organism is a pine tree in Southern CA. It is 4300 years old.

And this helps your point how? You do realize that living organisms have a lifespan and are prone to this thing we call "dying", right? What about dead trees? It's been shown on many occassions that by comparing overlapping tree rings of dead and living trees from the same area that a group of trees can date back more than 10,000 years. A patch of shrubry in the Mojave comes to mind - it's been shown to be more than 11,000 years old.

The largest stalactite and stalagmite formations can easily be reproduced in less than 5000 years. There are 50" long stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922.

Since when is a stalagmite an indication of how old the earth is?

The Sahara Desert is expanding. It is has been found to be less than 4300 years old.

It's common knowledge that the Sahara desert is young and is expanding. How does this help your point? Just because it's a large landform it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the history of the earth. Landforms are constantly changing. I have a creek in my backyard that is supposedly only a few hundred years old. I guess that makes the earth only a few hundred years old too!

There is only enough sediment in the ocean floors to indicate a few thousand years of erosion.

Any evidence? My college textbook says that millions of years worth of sediment have been found on the ocean floor.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It cannot be more than 25,000 years old. The Earth's magnetic field is in its crust, not in the molten center. The magnetic field cannot reverse.

Modern science has proved that earth's magnetic field does reverse and has several times in the past.

The planets are cooling down. Even if they only lost 0.001 K per year, that means they would have been 1 million Kelvin hotter 1 billion years ago.

Who says that planets are cooling consistently?



I did a paper on this in college a couple of years ago. What it basically boiled down to was that most of the creationist arguments are based on very old publications and ideas. Most modern science proves them to be bunk.

JamesM3M5 - I'm not trying to start a fight Please comment on what I've said. Can you refute any of it with facts? If you doubt any of my claims It won't be hard for me to find a reliable source to back me up.

Bad rap? Hey!

Anyway, as for the oceans losing salt in the past, I will have to concede. No one measured the saltiness of the oceans 5000 years ago. It may be possible for the oceans to lose salinity if you take a catastrophe into consideration. Maybe the oceans turned upside-down 10,000 years ago and the dirt filtered the salt from the water. Who knows? No one was there.

The oldest living organism was simply stating that there is nothing on the face of the dry Earth that has been living since before the flood of Genesis. That was approx 4400 years ago. The same goes for the Sahara. If there was no flood 4400 years ago, why isn't there an older organism and a bigger desert somewhere?

Also, I should have qualified my stalactite argument. They will tell you not to touch them when you go to the caverns because they take "millions of years" to grow. That has been proven false. There are many huge flow-stone formations over the world that are known to be less than 100 years old. One is in a re-opened mine in Australia.

As for erosion in the oceans, the Mississippi Delta is calculated to be only 30,000 years old. Why isn't it bigger? Maybe the river didn't form until 30,000 years ago, but I believe it formed when the flood waters ran off the continent and washed much of the soft mud out in less than a year. Call it a stupid theory, but you can't *prove* it to be wrong, just like I can't prove that the oceans have only been getting saltier.

Also, modern science has never proved that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. Since the compass was invented, it has always pointed toward magnetic North. The field is in the crust, not in the hot, molten center. The entire crust of the Earth would have to turn from North to South for it to change the direction on a compass. The Mid-Atlantic ridge shows areas of higher and lower magnetic intensity, but there are no places on the entire Earth where a north-seeking compass points to magnetic south.

Anyone got any ideas on the rate of the planets cooling?? They must cool off eventually. Only one of Jupiter's moons has a creamy center, the rest are hard.

I can also come up with many recent publications that show evidence of a younger Earth than many think.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. Asking you to back up all the drivel you've posted? What a radical idea!!!

2. Perhaps you could tell me where youg god came from then?

"Young" God? Just like the Big Bang's theory of all matter being concentrated at time zero and technically not existing in time, God does not exist in time. Time is a manifestation of what we humans perceive.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: rahvinYou aren't argueing facts your spouting garbage. For example you mentioned the Second law of thermodynamics and simultaneously proved that you don't know anything about thermodynamics or reasonable scientific inquiry...

What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics? Everything tends toward disorder, AKA entropy. If you consider the solar system as a closed system (there's nothing else for a long way), the sun provides energy to the planets. The sun is burning itself out.

How about everything?

Its very very convinient to consider the solar system as a closed system, but why not consider the UNIVERSE instead? Einstein's theory of relativity implies that the universe started from a single point some time in the past. it has been confirmed by Hubble and by cosmic background radiation. Evidence of singularities (black holes) has also been found.

Knowing that, imagine the universe moments after the big bang. The universe at that time was in a state of HIGH ORDER. It was smooth and regular with only minor fluctuations. Look at the universe today, it is in a state of disorderd. you see a galaxy there, a huge emply space, another galaxy here etc. When you consider the universe as a whole, it is in a higher state of disorder now that it was in the past. While the universe is expanding, the second law will hold true. Once (or if) it starts contracting, then the second law will not hold true, as the universe will be moving to a state of higher order.

The following idea is one I read a few days ago in "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. His arguments are logical and supported by evidence. Your arguments? Well, like everything else that you have posted here, they're nothing but a load of crap. Drivel poorly disguised as 'science'. I should not have even bothered posting the above, but oh well.

Go troll somewhere else please.

I read that book too long ago to remember everything in it. Hawking does not believe in God, so you can take his arguments to be skewed as much as mine are.

I would argue that the universe is more ordered now than at time zero. If it was a homogenous blend of matter and space, then it is unordered. Now it is extremely clumpy, with an uneven distribution of matter. There are 92 naturally occurring elements, where before it was a mix of subatomic particles. Now the matter is collected into stars and galaxies with humongous, and uneven amounts of space in between.

If you put ingredients to a banana shake in a blender, it is ordered at the beginning. You can remove the primary ingredients if you have to--milk, scoop of ice cream, and chunks of banana. Once you turn it on, it will become homogeneous. Now, pick out the bananas. You can't, right? That, I would consider a state of lower order than one of 3 definite ingredients of milk, ice cream, and bananas. No?

I think Hawking is an agnostic, although a friend told me Hawking said on LKL that he believes in "something, call it a god of you will"

Now, you would argue, but you are looking things on an extremely small scale. When you look at the univere as a whole is more disordered, even though in some places you might find high order, as a whole it is more disordered.

But hey, look at it this way:

Hawking is one of the leading physicists today, he holds the same chair Newton did. JamesM3M5 is a troll on the internet forums who shows some very poor comprehension skills. Who should people believe more? Who should people trust? Come on...take a guess...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
Bad rap? Hey!

Anyway, as for the oceans losing salt in the past, I will have to concede. No one measured the saltiness of the oceans 5000 years ago. It may be possible for the oceans to lose salinity if you take a catastrophe into consideration. Maybe the oceans turned upside-down 10,000 years ago and the dirt filtered the salt from the water. Who knows? No one was there.

The oldest living organism was simply stating that there is nothing on the face of the dry Earth that has been living since before the flood of Genesis. That was approx 4400 years ago. The same goes for the Sahara. If there was no flood 4400 years ago, why isn't there an older organism and a bigger desert somewhere?

Also, I should have qualified my stalactite argument. They will tell you not to touch them when you go to the caverns because they take "millions of years" to grow. That has been proven false. There are many huge flow-stone formations over the world that are known to be less than 100 years old. One is in a re-opened mine in Australia.

As for erosion in the oceans, the Mississippi Delta is calculated to be only 30,000 years old. Why isn't it bigger? Maybe the river didn't form until 30,000 years ago, but I believe it formed when the flood waters ran off the continent and washed much of the soft mud out in less than a year. Call it a stupid theory, but you can't *prove* it to be wrong, just like I can't prove that the oceans have only been getting saltier.

Also, modern science has never proved that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. Since the compass was invented, it has always pointed toward magnetic North. The field is in the crust, not in the hot, molten center. The entire crust of the Earth would have to turn from North to South for it to change the direction on a compass. The Mid-Atlantic ridge shows areas of higher and lower magnetic intensity, but there are no places on the entire Earth where a north-seeking compass points to magnetic south.

Anyone got any ideas on the rate of the planets cooling?? They must cool off eventually. Only one of Jupiter's moons has a creamy center, the rest are hard.

I can also come up with many recent publications that show evidence of a younger Earth than many think.

Gawd dam you are entertaining to say the least. I'll be chuckling to myself for weeks over the stuff you have posted.

:Q

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1. Asking you to back up all the drivel you've posted? What a radical idea!!!

2. Perhaps you could tell me where youg god came from then?

"Young" God? Just like the Big Bang's theory of all matter being concentrated at time zero and technically not existing in time, God does not exist in time. Time is a manifestation of what we humans perceive.

There was no matter. Matter didn't form for quite a while after the big bang.

 

[DougK62]

In fact, all animals and humans were vegetarian until after the flood.

This has me pretty curious. Why do you think that nothing ate meat before the flood? I've never heard of such a thing.

 

[Gaard]

Also, modern science has never proved that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. Since the compass was invented, it has always pointed toward magnetic North. The field is in the crust, not in the hot, molten center. The entire crust of the Earth would have to turn from North to South for it to change the direction on a compass.

Are you sure?

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: sandigga
If anybody in here actually cares to try and understand, and is willing to listen w/ an open mind.. try reading a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's about a Yale Law School graduate, who was determined to prove the bible was false and made up. In the book he interviews a bunch of esteemed professors/researchers/anthropoligists/historians.. both christian and not... you'd be surprised the evidence that exists that proves the reliability of the bible compared to those of other historical documents which are not even challenged to be reliable or true or authentic...

Thank you! At least one person here who doesn't have his jaws on my throat!!

I believe that the "humanist" world view where there is no God and no moral absolutes is the main reason for the ethic and moral downturn in the world in the last 50 years. True believers of the teachings of the Bible know that we have to answer to a Supreme Being once this temporary existence is up. Racism, genocide, murder, adultery, lying, stealing, want, etc, all come from the lusts of men. I hope I can convince at least one person here that God exists and we will have to answer to Him. If I'm wrong and there is no God, then we are all destined for nothing but a cold grave. I will have lived a good life here on Earth, raised children that know right from wrong and to love their neighbors, and die a happy man. However, if I am right.......

 

[Vic]

Sigh... I have an idea. Why don't the flamers and thread-crappers go start a new thread to debate the various merits and points of evolution vs. creation and leave this thread alone.

Once again, Chiwawa626, thanks for the links to the Bible on mp3. Very interesting. I would recommend reading it rather than listening to it, but this is still a good thing.

Like I posted before, the Bible is a very educating book for those interested in human history and philosophy, whether you believe in God or not. For those of you who slam it, realize that it is easy to tell that you have never read it. It's obvious, because there is so much more to the Bible than just Creation and God. Much more. In fact, if you took God completely out of the Bible, you would still have the best book ever for philosophy, wisdom, and life management. If we never had the Bible and the text was discovered today at some archeological dig, it would be the greatest historical find of all time.

More to the point, your arguments (both sides) are like vain repititions that seem to be solely for sake of arguing. Kinda like little children. The fact is you do not know. None of you know. No one on earth knows. We will never know. It could be that the Bible was never intended to be interpreted literally. It could be that the universe was created and life evolved exactly as the scientists theorize and that God still exists and that He planned it that way. NO ONE KNOWS. All we really know is that we're here, life exists, it's real, we don't know where it came from or why, and we're all gonna die, we might find out then. That's it.

Get over it and quit worrying about what other people believe in and/or quit trying to Nazi-style shove your beliefs down other peoples' throats (both sides).

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: DougK62

In fact, all animals and humans were vegetarian until after the flood.

This has me pretty curious. Why do you think that nothing ate meat before the flood? I've never heard of such a thing.

God told Adam in Genesis 1:29-30 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Then after the flood, God told Noah in Genesis 9:2-3 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

That's why Noah could take ferocious animals all together on the ark. The animals were all vegetarian until after the flood. You can't look at teeth and determine positively that an animal is herbivorous or carnivorus. Panda bears, fruit bats, and many different monkeys are a few examples of sharp-toothed plant eaters that I can think of. Humans have teeth that would be considered plant-chewing teeth.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Also, modern science has never proved that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. Since the compass was invented, it has always pointed toward magnetic North. The field is in the crust, not in the hot, molten center. The entire crust of the Earth would have to turn from North to South for it to change the direction on a compass.

Are you sure?

My source says that those are not reversals at all in the Mid-Atlantic ridge. They are merely areas of higher and lower intensity magnetism, but the curves do not drop below the positive side of the X-axis. I will look for other sources to refute that webpage you linked.

This site is also one that believes in plate tectonics and that the Earth is b/millions of years old. Plate tectonics has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not shadow of doubt--reasonable doubt). It does fit certain features we see on the Earth's crust, but it does not explain magnetic reversals.

 

[JamesM3M5]

I'm going to bed. I will have company over for the next 3 days and tons of house projects, so don't think I've run away and hid.

 

[chiwawa626]

Ok....everyone out of my thread....stop crapping eachothers ideas, and calm down ....

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: Gaard

Also, modern science has never proved that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed. Since the compass was invented, it has always pointed toward magnetic North. The field is in the crust, not in the hot, molten center. The entire crust of the Earth would have to turn from North to South for it to change the direction on a compass.

Are you sure?

My source says that those are not reversals at all in the Mid-Atlantic ridge. They are merely areas of higher and lower intensity magnetism, but the curves do not drop below the positive side of the X-axis. I will look for other sources to refute that webpage you linked.

This site is also one that believes in plate tectonics and that the Earth is b/millions of years old. Plate tectonics has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not shadow of doubt--reasonable doubt). It can does fit certain features we see on the Earth's crust, but it does not explain magnetic reversals.

Is this one any better?

What about this one?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
I'm going to bed. I will have company over for the next 3 days and tons of house projects, so don't think I've run away and hid.

But we already know you did that.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
I'm going to bed. I will have company over for the next 3 days and tons of house projects, so don't think I've run away and hid.

but of course...lol.


Don't worry folks, we won't be seeing any more of him.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: DougK62

In fact, all animals and humans were vegetarian until after the flood.

This has me pretty curious. Why do you think that nothing ate meat before the flood? I've never heard of such a thing.

God told Adam in Genesis 1:29-30 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Then after the flood, God told Noah in Genesis 9:2-3 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

That's why Noah could take ferocious animals all together on the ark. The animals were all vegetarian until after the flood. You can't look at teeth and determine positively that an animal is herbivorous or carnivorus. Panda bears, fruit bats, and many different monkeys are a few examples of sharp-toothed plant eaters that I can think of. Humans have teeth that would be considered plant-chewing teeth.

which would be nice if all animals were omnivours, but they aren't poor dinosoars eh? and no, human teeth are omnivorous. we have canines remember

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: DougK62

In fact, all animals and humans were vegetarian until after the flood.

This has me pretty curious. Why do you think that nothing ate meat before the flood? I've never heard of such a thing.

God told Adam in Genesis 1:29-30 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Then after the flood, God told Noah in Genesis 9:2-3 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

That's why Noah could take ferocious animals all together on the ark. The animals were all vegetarian until after the flood. You can't look at teeth and determine positively that an animal is herbivorous or carnivorus. Panda bears, fruit bats, and many different monkeys are a few examples of sharp-toothed plant eaters that I can think of. Humans have teeth that would be considered plant-chewing teeth.

which would be nice if all animals were omnivours, but they aren't poor dinosoars eh? and no, human teeth are omnivorous. we have canines remember

You and you logic!!! Begone from this thread, infidel!