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.
Because to eat one must kill. Even plants are alive.Why not eat? Even if we don't get any of what we choose to eat, we would survive with other stuff. But the way we are made we choose specific things to eat even without it needed for surviving that we have those specific things. The food we would like should be there for us.
Why not eat? Even if we don't get any of what we choose to eat, we would survive with other stuff. But the way we are made we choose specific things to eat even without it needed for surviving that we have those specific things. The food we would like should be there for us.
Subduction Zone said:Because to eat one must kill. Even plants are alive.
Is thetre some problem, that some animals eat plants, some other animals, and some eat both...?Certainly. I understand this and that is not the issue discussed. The response I made is the topic introduced as to why eat things. Plants are provided for it, and those are including living things that should be eaten. If those are most desirable, of course those would be chosen and eaten. Animal life cannot continue in the world if all animals just eat animals. Animal life continues because there are animals which eat photosynthesizing organisms, and these largely include plants.
As long as life has existed, death has also existed.
As long as animals have existed, we have eaten other animals.
We are not discussing "biblical inaccuracy". We are discussing scientific facts.
The Ediacaran fauna was carnivorous. Herbivorous animals were a later development.
please show an Ediacaran herbivore.And this being claimed is refuted. There is not scientific fact here.
To be fair the diets of Ediacaran fauna is difficult to verify. But with the existence of complex algae that formed seaweed herbivores almost certainly existed. Those algae would have qualified as plants and the animals that consumed them would have been herbivores:please show an Ediacaran herbivore.
According to creationists there was no death before the Fall. If animals were no longer in danger of starving to death then why would there be a need to eat?
Ah. that makes senseTo be fair the diets of Ediacaran fauna is difficult to verify. But with the existence of complex algae that formed seaweed herbivores almost certainly existed. Those algae would have qualified as plants and the animals that consumed them would have been herbivores:
Algae
And that refers to spiritual death. The only issue that God is concerned with.That applied ONLY to humans.
There would be no need for food if animals never die.It does not say their were animal deaths nor does it say there weren’t animal death. The wage of sin is death but sin had not entered the world until the fall. Ge. 1:29-31 indicates man and all living things were going to be vegans. If that is correct no one would need to kill for food.
If food is needed, then it's because animals and man were physically going to die.Huh? Genesis 2:16
Plants aren't food? OK.......If animals or man never died, then there would be no need for food.
No food provided....animals and man still living before the Fall.
If food is needed, then it's because animals and man were physically going to die.
If water is provided, it's because man and animals needed water to live.
I like spinach and eggs myself. With onions.Plants aren't food? OK.......
I take it that's an admission of fault, but you haven't the grace to say it in a straightforward manner.I like spinach and eggs myself. With onions.
You claimed that plants aren't food. I shan't argue the point.I take it that's an admission of fault, but you haven't the grace to say it in a straightforward manner.
It was your claim, not mine.You claimed that plants aren't food. I shan't argue the point.
Some people just love to argue.
If you misquote me then you will bop your head with a hammer all day long.It was your claim, not mine.
SkyWriting: No food was needed
Me: Genesis 2:16 has God telling Adam to eat any plant he wanted
SkyWriting: No food was provided
Me: OK, so you don't consider plants to be food
Perhaps you should read your own posts before accusing others of misquoting them. You know how, when you hit "Reply", it automatically quotes the post? That's how I know I didn't misquote you.If you misquote me then you will bop your head with a hammer all day long.
Yet the dialogue will not improve. You don't quote, you don't link...you just bop.
Maybe go to the original post just before hammer time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?