Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why did god create life to consume other life

janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:22:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)? : :

Everything will change in the New Heaven and Earth part of the program. We will all understand how we were created and will never have to eat to nourish our bodies again. We will experience taste but that's it.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:26:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:22:36 AM, simplelife wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)? : :

Everything will change in the New Heaven and Earth part of the program. We will all understand how we were created and will never have to eat to nourish our bodies again. We will experience taste but that's it.

That doesn't answer the question. WHY did God make things this way?
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:32:07 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:26:46 AM, janesix wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:22:36 AM, simplelife wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)? : :

Everything will change in the New Heaven and Earth part of the program. We will all understand how we were created and will never have to eat to nourish our bodies again. We will experience taste but that's it.

That doesn't answer the question. WHY did God make things this way? : :

Life appears more real when we believe we have to eat to nourish our bodies. We're living in a very strong delusion that makes God's people believe they are real people living on a real earth. We're actually nothing but processed information that we're experiencing in our individual minds.

Most people hate to hear how we're created because they want to believe they are real people made of material. Most physicists now agree that an atom is made up of 99.99% empty space. However, they do not know that space is only a formed illusion in each individual mind.
persianimmortal
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:20:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Well we aren't plants so I don't know what you're getting at? Are you saying why weren't we made of celery skin and carrot hair and sunflower height? If you could elaborate that would be dandy, or you can just start from a simpler question, "What is the Nature of God?" then, we can get into specifics...up 2 U
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:47:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

She didn't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.
Beauty_Of_Insanity
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:15:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Because that would be stupid.
Best Commentary/Replies:

"You forget: Im a twisted bastard."
-imabench-

"Young people in their teens and twenties think that life sucks. Life hasn't even begun to -censored- you yet, suck it up bitches."
-sadolite-

////////////

Interpersonal Intelligence Level: Mild Mental Retardation
Legit Friend Count: 0
Intelligence: Freakin' Brilliant
MLG Level: Dis game iz 2 eazy...
tweepoppy1
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.
tweepoppy1
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
tweepoppy1
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 1:43:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
genesis is far from accurate the sun was here before earth so your logic makes no sense god did not hide the sun from us. in fact its arrogant and foolish to believe that god spend 4 day making this earth but only one day making the rest of the infinite cosmos. in fact your beliefs dont have a scientific leg to stand on anything in genesis that is close to accurate is vague and all the specific features of genisis ex. earth made in 7 days,eve made from a rib,talking snake ect. is not only false but not even remotly logical
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 1:56:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:43:00 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
genesis is far from accurate the sun was here before earth so your logic makes no sense god did not hide the sun from us. in fact its arrogant and foolish to believe that god spend 4 day making this earth but only one day making the rest of the infinite cosmos. in fact your beliefs dont have a scientific leg to stand on anything in genesis that is close to accurate is vague and all the specific features of genisis ex. earth made in 7 days,eve made from a rib,talking snake ect. is not only false but not even remotly logical

Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens and the earth were created before Genesis 1 even starts of the preparation of the earth for life, and the creation of that life.

Think about it. The sun moon and stars are the heavens, and one of only two of the three "heavens" which were created at all.

That by simple reasoning shows that the sun moon and stars were created before the earth and is what makes verse 14 an obvious mistranslation.

That simple fact makes Genesis 1 100% accurate in what few details it gives.

That is what you are evidently ether unable or unwilling to understand.

Like I say, your problem, your loss.

It is so obvious that the biggest fool should be able to see it let alone anyone intelligent.

Who says they were literal days?

The word day has numerous meanings one of which is a definite but unspecified period of time, as "in Noah's day". How long was Noah's day? That simple use of the word day does not tell us.

Also who says each day was of the same length? Scripture certainly doesn't.

Nor does it appear to include verse 1 in the 6 "days" of creation.

Incidentally according to scripture we are still in the 7th "day".

Try putting some actual thought into what you read.
tweepoppy1
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:56:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:43:00 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It would seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm goanna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it would appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence could be proved false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was meant to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
genesis is far from accurate the sun was here before earth so your logic makes no sense god did not hide the sun from us. in fact its arrogant and foolish to believe that god spend 4 day making this earth but only one day making the rest of the infinite cosmos. in fact your beliefs don't have a scientific leg to stand on anything in genesis that is close to accurate is vague and all the specific features of genesis ex. earth made in 7 days,eve made from a rib,talking snake eat. is not only false but not even remotely logical

Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens and the earth were created before Genesis 1 even starts of the preparation of the earth for life, and the creation of that life.

Think about it. The sun moon and stars are the heavens, and one of only two of the three "heavens" which were created at all.

That by simple reasoning shows that the sun moon and stars were created before the earth and is what makes verse 14 an obvious mistranslation.

That simple fact makes Genesis 1 100% accurate in what few details it gives.

That is what you are evidently ether unable or unwilling to understand.

Like I say, your problem, your loss.

It is so obvious that the biggest fool should be able to see it let alone anyone intelligent.

Who says they were literal days?

The word day has numerous meanings one of which is a definite but unspecified period of time, as "in Noah's day". How long was Noah's day? That simple use of the word day does not tell us.

Also who says each day was of the same length? Scripture certainly doesn't.

Nor does it appear to include verse 1 in the 6 "days" of creation.

Incidentally according to scripture we are still in the 7th "day".

Try putting some actual thought into what you read.

look a day is 24 hours a hour is 60 minutes a minute is 60 seconds you can not try and redefine what a day is just because it does not match your believe. now don't get me wrong the possibility of a creator of the universe is real but your bible is a collection of primitive stories that have no bases in reality. I see a god who governs not morally but physically because if a god set laws these laws cannot be broken such as the laws of physics. but this personal anthropomorphic god of yours does not exist.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:10:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 2:13:42 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:56:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:43:00 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It would seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm goanna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it would appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence could be proved false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was meant to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
genesis is far from accurate the sun was here before earth so your logic makes no sense god did not hide the sun from us. in fact its arrogant and foolish to believe that god spend 4 day making this earth but only one day making the rest of the infinite cosmos. in fact your beliefs don't have a scientific leg to stand on anything in genesis that is close to accurate is vague and all the specific features of genesis ex. earth made in 7 days,eve made from a rib,talking snake eat. is not only false but not even remotely logical

Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens and the earth were created before Genesis 1 even starts of the preparation of the earth for life, and the creation of that life.

Think about it. The sun moon and stars are the heavens, and one of only two of the three "heavens" which were created at all.

That by simple reasoning shows that the sun moon and stars were created before the earth and is what makes verse 14 an obvious mistranslation.

That simple fact makes Genesis 1 100% accurate in what few details it gives.

That is what you are evidently ether unable or unwilling to understand.

Like I say, your problem, your loss.

It is so obvious that the biggest fool should be able to see it let alone anyone intelligent.

Who says they were literal days?

The word day has numerous meanings one of which is a definite but unspecified period of time, as "in Noah's day". How long was Noah's day? That simple use of the word day does not tell us.

Also who says each day was of the same length? Scripture certainly doesn't.

Nor does it appear to include verse 1 in the 6 "days" of creation.

Incidentally according to scripture we are still in the 7th "day".

Try putting some actual thought into what you read.

look a day is 24 hours a hour is 60 minutes a minute is 60 seconds you can not try and redefine what a day is just because it does not match your believe. now don't get me wrong the possibility of a creator of the universe is real but your bible is a collection of primitive stories that have no bases in reality. I see a god who governs not morally but physically because if a god set laws these laws cannot be broken such as the laws of physics. but this personal anthropomorphic god of yours does not exist.

A day has numerous meanings.

For instance at the poles it can be about 6 months, if you count it as a period of daylight.

Of course if you are determined not to accept the alternative meanings of the word "day" that also is your problem, no-one else's.

Maybe you should get a better dictionary.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:15:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?
The d*ckhead who concocted the story, of course.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:04:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 8:47:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

She didn't.

How well do you know her?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:17:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:04:22 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 8:47:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

She didn't.

How well do you know her?
I'm fcking her so pretty well.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:32:07 AM, simplelife wrote:

Most people hate to hear how we're created because they want to believe they are real people made of material. Most physicists now agree that an atom is made up of 99.99% empty space. However, they do not know that space is only a formed illusion in each individual mind.

So close so far is you to understand we live confined to a simulation, but simultaneously at least for me, I exist in the real which is outside the illusions of time. And wouldn't you know I look exactly the same as I do now minus all the affects of negativity that taxes one's appearance.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:39:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:17:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:04:22 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 8:47:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

She didn't.

How well do you know her?
I'm fcking her so pretty well.

I'm guessing you've accidentally heard my name a few times then.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:00:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Existence seems to favor variety over longevity. As many forms of being that can occur get their chase, even if they don't get to exist for long. And maybe that expresses a kind of 'fairness' or morality, in itself.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:12:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:00:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Existence seems to favor variety over longevity. As many forms of being that can occur get their chase, even if they don't get to exist for long. And maybe that expresses a kind of 'fairness' or morality, in itself.

That is an interesting viewpoint, but I think it is more accurate to say that when a species has outlived it's place in creation it is allowed to die out.

The only problem with that is that we are currently messing that idea about by destroying habitat and polluting both sea and land.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:19:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

100% accurate according to scientific knowledge would be:

God created the heavens.

God created the sun; and it started shining.

God created the earth.

God created the moon (lets ignore poetic license of knowing the moon isn't a light source).

God created single celled organism and basic animals that teemed in the ocean.

God created basic land plants.

God created fish.

God created seeded plants.

God created land dwelling creatures.

God created angiosperms (flowering plants)

God created modern mammals and then humans.

If the bible deviates from this order in the slightest (which it does in several ways), it is not 100% scientifically accurate.

What you're doing, is claiming that it is 100% scientifically accurate, and then inventing wild non-scientific explanations of why what the bible says does not match anything that science has to say on the subject.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:43:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There are two creation stories in Genesis, in chapters 1 and 2. I suggest the first one is the outline script of a ritual enactment of the creation developed during the Babylonan captivity to compete with the Babylonian new year festival of Akitu.

wiki article on Akitu:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

We know the books of the OT were essentially written or heavily revised ('redacted') during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity and the captive Jews would be very familiar with Akitu. The Jewish priests worked hard to prevent the Jews from being assimilated by their captors in the 70 years the captivity lasted. Developing a definitive scripture was an important part of preventing assimilation - by writing it down Jewish identity was defined and fixed . The Jewish priesthood also (I suggest) developed their own 'Hebrew-ised' version of Akitu, and that forms the basis of Gen 1.

In that case, gen 2 could be closer to the original Hebrew myth and Gen 1 a later adaptation more suited to the needs of a ritualised festival spread over a number of days in imitation of the 12-day Akitu.

Ok, it's speculative, but there has to be some reason why there are two different legends of creation in the Bible and the striking dramatic style of Gen 1 !!
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:44:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 8:20:38 AM, persianimmortal wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Well we aren't plants so I don't know what you're getting at? Are you saying why weren't we made of celery skin and carrot hair and sunflower height? If you could elaborate that would be dandy, or you can just start from a simpler question, "What is the Nature of God?" then, we can get into specifics...up 2 U

It just seems morbid to me that God would create life that needs to consume other life to survive, when there are other available options.

The answer could be that "thinking, conscious" life needs more than just simple sugars it can get through sunlight and photo synthesis.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 9:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:31:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:06:17 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:59:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:48:26 PM, tweepoppy1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:14:04 PM, Mad cornish biker wrote:
At 5/31/2016 11:48:27 PM, janesix wrote:
?

Why did he create life this way when there is a way to create life without consumption of other living beings (photosynthesis)?

Photosynthesis isn't suitable for all living things.

Animals were designed to have various diets. It wold seem that in the original design carnivorous animals were designed with the intent of them eating carrion, and thus cleaning up the environment. However post flood things changed dramatically.

Due to the lack of vegetation humans were given the right to eat animal flesh, though it was only intended for us to eat as needed not as wanted.

Since there w as a lack of carrion also animals learned t hunt and kill.

Its like the old joke about too vultures in a tree. On turns to the other and says "patience my butt, I'm gonna kill something soon".

However, if you read the creation account, everything was originally signed as vegetarian, including humans, which could well explain current findings about the health benefits of vegetarian / vegan diets, including longer life spans.

It appears that vegetarians and vegans really do live longer and stay fitter and more aware.

Certainly makes me glad I have gone vegetarian, again, myself in recent years.

its funny how you think eating plants is not consuming life. look buddy eating eating your vegetables is healthy but in no way evidence for creationism.

Good point. Plants are a life form indeed, but it wold appear that it is the level of sentience which makes the difference.

No it is not evidence for creationism, science provides all the evidence for that which we need.

However to an extent it is confirmation.

no science does not confirm creationism in any way you sir are making statements with no evidence.evoulution could be proven false if a fossil is out of order but out of thousands of fossils not one was in the incorrect order. in fact our bodies are not really meant to eat flora. we really can only eat some specific kinds of flora. try eating grass for the rest of your life because if our body was ment to eat only plants our body would have no problem living off grass. but it simply can not do that.

Actually it does, and very much so.
Whilst Genesis 1 does not give many details, merely the order of things really, it is 100% accurate according to scientific knowledge, as long as you have sufficient reasoning power to recognise the one obvious mistranslated.

Obvious mistranslation?

Yes of course, how else can you explain the thought that the sun moon and stars could be created both in verse 1 and verse 14? It isn't remotely logical things can only be created once.

However they can be created once but only made visible from the earth much later.
If you either cannot, or refuse to, recognise the absolute accuracy of the few details Genesis 1 does give us than that is your problem and your loss.

Where else could such information have come from other than from God himself?

You forgot the other problem with genesis. If your explanation was true then plants would have to exist on earth without sunlight until God made the sun visible. It's well known plants need light to survive. Don't try claiming that earth had significant amounts of light without the sun being visible. The vast majority of the earths light comes from the sun. Without it there would not be sufficient light to support plant life. Anyway it's obvious genesis says the sun was created in verse 14.
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 3:16:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:32:07 AM, simplelife wrote:

Most people hate to hear how we're created because they want to believe they are real people made of material. Most physicists now agree that an atom is made up of 99.99% empty space. However, they do not know that space is only a formed illusion in each individual mind.

So close so far is you to understand we live confined to a simulation, but simultaneously at least for me, I exist in the real which is outside the illusions of time. And wouldn't you know I look exactly the same as I do now minus all the affects of negativity that taxes one's appearance. : :

You're just as confused as all the rest of the religious and science loving fools.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 3:37:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 3:16:08 AM, simplelife wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:32:07 AM, simplelife wrote:

Most people hate to hear how we're created because they want to believe they are real people made of material. Most physicists now agree that an atom is made up of 99.99% empty space. However, they do not know that space is only a formed illusion in each individual mind.

So close so far is you to understand we live confined to a simulation, but simultaneously at least for me, I exist in the real which is outside the illusions of time. And wouldn't you know I look exactly the same as I do now minus all the affects of negativity that taxes one's appearance. : :

You're just as confused as all the rest of the religious and science loving fools.

Do one for snooze go you. Me go 123 breaths bye bye cross over hope I die. I die yes wakeup rover go home over out fish flop me trout no water no air no worry I dare you to know what I say so so true. Me be superman fly high so fast my kung-fu go neo numb numb I the One go gum gum gummy care bear beat you up put you down. I wear the crown king me checkmate Goddess hate not me love long time duck duck go you goose goose gandolf say what?

THE ROOf YOUR ROOF STUPId is THE Roof oN Fire You dON't nEed NO WAter let your STUPUD Roof BURN DOWn
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 3:44:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 3:37:42 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 3:16:08 AM, simplelife wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 12:32:07 AM, simplelife wrote:

Most people hate to hear how we're created because they want to believe they are real people made of material. Most physicists now agree that an atom is made up of 99.99% empty space. However, they do not know that space is only a formed illusion in each individual mind.

So close so far is you to understand we live confined to a simulation, but simultaneously at least for me, I exist in the real which is outside the illusions of time. And wouldn't you know I look exactly the same as I do now minus all the affects of negativity that taxes one's appearance. : :

You're just as confused as all the rest of the religious and science loving fools.

Do one for snooze go you. Me go 123 breaths bye bye cross over hope I die. I die yes wakeup rover go home over out fish flop me trout no water no air no worry I dare you to know what I say so so true. Me be superman fly high so fast my kung-fu go neo numb numb I the One go gum gum gummy care bear beat you up put you down. I wear the crown king me checkmate Goddess hate not me love long time duck duck go you goose goose gandolf say what?

THE ROOf YOUR ROOF STUPId is THE Roof oN Fire You dON't nEed NO WAter let your STUPUD Roof BURN DOWn : :

Debate.org is going downhill fast.