LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Question for creationists
- Thread starter ashibaka
- Start date
Any changes which might occur in viruses have very little, if any, apologetic value for evolutionists trying to show us how a fish supposedly changed into an amphibian.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by ashibaka
N.B. This question has nothing to do with evolution, so don't bring that into it. I am asking about Biblical Creationism.
Genesis 1:30 says that animals are supposed to eat plants. So, until the Fall or the Flood (not sure which one), all animals were herbivores. That being the case, what was God's original purpose for:
- Mosquitoes
- Leeches
- Venus flytraps
That is all.
Ashibaka
same reason I pack a heavy coat and gloves when I go to Tennessee from Mississippi each year for Christmas. . . . in preparation for the cold weather. Makes no sense to wear them in Mississippi
Upvote
0
Originally posted by vernigan
Why do fruit bats have fangs??? They aren't carnivores.
God created them specifically for dracula movies.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by npetreley
God created them specifically for dracula movies.
no, most think that fangs(ref T-Rex post)automatically imply "meat eaters".
Why do fruit bats have fangs?
CHINA'S giant pandas are vegetarians, eating virtually nothing but bamboo. They have fangs. Why do THEY have fangs?
Upvote
0
Why couldn't T-Rex be vegetarian initially?
If pandas have fangs but eat bamboo and fruit bats have fangs but eat berries, couldn't an inferrence be semi conclusive that t-rex coulda survived on plants and fruits?
we were created with a hard head - cranium - why? So we could go around intentionally whacking our heads against walls? No. But maybe sometime(maybe even tomorrow) we might need that bone structure as "protection" for ourselves down the road.
If pandas have fangs but eat bamboo and fruit bats have fangs but eat berries, couldn't an inferrence be semi conclusive that t-rex coulda survived on plants and fruits?
we were created with a hard head - cranium - why? So we could go around intentionally whacking our heads against walls? No. But maybe sometime(maybe even tomorrow) we might need that bone structure as "protection" for ourselves down the road.
Upvote
0
Well, I'll make a stab at this, but I doubt people will like may answer. First, you have to open up your mind to what you actually know for sure, and not the way you think things are. This is an important first step to dealing with reality in a more concrete manner.
One small lesson is that truth can be stranger than fiction, and another is that there is more going on around you than meets the eye, that there is a deeper message to reality, to what is real, and it is the Truth.
This then is my speculation. The past is not constant, nor is the future. Everything is now. Science is good, but feeble to look past its technological limitations. As technologies increase, science will broaden and deepen, but we have to be prepared to question even fundamental assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the universe consists of a set beginning and end, which in itself is true, and that once something has occurred, that event is fixed in the past. However, is the past actually fixed?
Basically, we are like people in a movie. To us, once a scene has past, it is a part of the permanent past, but for God, the movie maker in this analogy, that just isn't the case. He can replay and edit as much as He wants, but of course within the limits He has imposed on how He has chosen to work with His creation.
The past is not fixed. It can be changed just as the present can. Thankfully, this, if true, is a mystery which God only lets us catch a glimpses of, and the ever-merciful God maintains a consistency and level of unity in our experience so that we all share or appear to share the same space-time and past.
The question is if Adam's fall did not change creation from beginning to end. Was the movie changed?
One small lesson is that truth can be stranger than fiction, and another is that there is more going on around you than meets the eye, that there is a deeper message to reality, to what is real, and it is the Truth.
This then is my speculation. The past is not constant, nor is the future. Everything is now. Science is good, but feeble to look past its technological limitations. As technologies increase, science will broaden and deepen, but we have to be prepared to question even fundamental assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the universe consists of a set beginning and end, which in itself is true, and that once something has occurred, that event is fixed in the past. However, is the past actually fixed?
Basically, we are like people in a movie. To us, once a scene has past, it is a part of the permanent past, but for God, the movie maker in this analogy, that just isn't the case. He can replay and edit as much as He wants, but of course within the limits He has imposed on how He has chosen to work with His creation.
The past is not fixed. It can be changed just as the present can. Thankfully, this, if true, is a mystery which God only lets us catch a glimpses of, and the ever-merciful God maintains a consistency and level of unity in our experience so that we all share or appear to share the same space-time and past.
The question is if Adam's fall did not change creation from beginning to end. Was the movie changed?
Upvote
0
You could be right, of course. I don't know, but I would like to know why T-Rex had such wimpy arms. Speaking of which, did you ever notice that the monster Grendel in Beowulf could bite off the heads of its victims, but Beowulf was able to rip its arm off fairly easily, and that's what caused it to bleed to death?
Evolutionists, however, would probably say that the fangs are vestigal or something like that. (I'm still waiting for some darwininan explanation for vestigal virgins, but the evolutionists won't give me any.) I've heard that said of pandas, anyway, on some PBS show, I think. I enjoy some PBS documentaries, but I won't tell you what I think of most of them because it will get censored by the board software.
Upvote
0
IMO, that's an excellent question. Not one we'll probably ever be able to answer until we get to ask Who did it, but an excellent question.
Upvote
0
agree. s'like trying to explain what the color red looks like to a blind man. no reference point to build upon. But when we explain it to each other. . . . piece of cake. Because we have a base, a foundation to build upon.
When the blind man can see, he can understand what the color red looks like. A day is coming when we'll be able to SEE as well.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
