why did god create predators?

[Astrid]

i dont consid

#1 occassionally is not definite
#2 there is no such thing as always and never.
#3 99.9% of animals with horns are herbivores
#4 99.9% is a definite doomsday threshold limit
#5 my points are very correct

You said none

And you just made up those numbers

 

[Panthers]

You said none

And you just made up those numbers

no those are verylegit.

like 99.99998% legit

 

[Panthers]

https://imgur.com/a/tdu9tYT

 

[Kylie]

i dont consid

This is half a sentence. What are you trying to say?

#1 occassionally is not definite

Chameleons do not OCCASIONALLY eat other animals. They ALWAYS eat other animal;s. Their diet consists entirely of eating other animals. They are predators.

#2 there is no such thing as always and never.

That wasn't your claim. You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

#3 99.9% of animals with horns are herbivores

So what? That wasn't your claim. You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

#4 99.9% is a definite doomsday threshold limit

This has nothing to do with your claim.

#5 my points are very correct

You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

 

[Panthers]

This is half a sentence. What are you trying to say?

Chameleons do not OCCASIONALLY eat other animals. They ALWAYS eat other animal;s. Their diet consists entirely of eating other animals. They are predators.

That wasn't your claim. You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

So what? That wasn't your claim. You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

This has nothing to do with your claim.

You said there ARE NO HORNED PREDATORS. I showed you a horned predator, therefore your claim is wrong.

an occassional horn on a jackal does not count
this is clearly a mutation as is with the giant and mini lizards.

so again no predators have horns...

refer to point #2 again if still confused

 

[Kylie]

an occassional horn on a jackal does not count
this is clearly a mutation as is with the giant and mini lizards.

so again no predators have horns...

refer to point #2 again if still confused

Once again, ALL Jackson's Chameleons have horns and they are ALL predators.

ALL Carnotaurs had horns and they were ALL predators.

 

[Panthers]

Once again, ALL Jackson's Chameleons have horns and they are ALL predators.

ALL Carnotaurs had horns and they were ALL predators.

Once again, ALL Jackson's Chameleons have horns and they are ALL predators.

ALL Carnotaurs had horns and they were ALL predators.

yes severly mutated ones.. again doom was nigh..

it is not by design... that predators have horns ; as says the 99.9998% probability.

what dont you get?

 

[Kylie]

yes severly mutated ones.. again doom was nigh..

it is not by design... that predators have horns ; as says the 99.9998% probability.

what dont you get?

So ALL of those chameleons are severely mutated. All of them. In exactly the same way.

You might as well say that all humans having two legs is a mutation.

 

[Panthers]

So ALL of those chameleons are severely mutated. All of them. In exactly the same way.

You might as well say that all humans having two legs is a mutation.

they dont exactly look right do they...

(the lizards..)

 

[Kylie]

they dont exactly look right do they...

(the lizards..)

Irrelevant.

You don't get to decide that something doesn't count just because you think it looks weird.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't get to decide that something doesn't count just because you think it looks weird.

Bad news for you evolutionists:

 

[Astrid]

no those are verylegit.

like 99.99998% legit

Uh, not really. It's closer to
99.999978.
But call it a rounding error, I'm just
being tiresomely picky.

 

[Larniavc]

a chameleon is not a predator

Yeah, it is. It has a tongue that pistons out to adhere to prey. Which it then eats. Making it a carnivorous predator.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Well, assuming suffering and death are necessary for a kind of "free will", and the world wasn't developed under direct, or deterministic control, it's not surprising that suffering and death would work their way into the outcome. The Christian idea of remaking the world has always been a bit of a project.

(Although if you're a 6 day creationist, you could probably argue that the Fall made everything different.)

 

[Kylie]

Bad news for you evolutionists:

Wow. You didn't understand the point of that at all, did you? Those dinosaurs still actually existed you know. What is this idea you have that the name has some influence over it? That if we call it something different it actually becomes something different? It's still the same animal.

And his claim that the dinosaur in Jurassic Park was a brontosaurus is just wrong. It was a brachiosaurus. They clearly state that it's a brachiosaurus in the movie. Just goes to show you that you can't trust something just because it's on the internet.

 

[Astrid]

Yeah, it is. It has a tongue that pistons out to adhere to prey. Which it then eats. Making it a carnivorous predator.

Our friend is just being silly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

a chameleon is not a predator...

"Jackson's chameleon ... eat a wide variety of small animals including ants, butterflies, caterpillars, snails, worms, lizards, geckos, amphibians, and other chameleons..." Wikipedia
I think that can be counted as predatory. They are also preyed upon.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Our friend is just being silly.

Looks like a case where using smilies would have helped...

 

[Astrid]

Looks like a case where using smilies would have helped...

Its hard to tell when Creatioists stop
attempting to be serious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its hard to tell when Creatioists stop
attempting to be serious.

POE's law...