Why did God make it so animals need to eat in order to survive?

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
Gosh, I dunno....there are so many folks following the antichrist spirit that they all run together sometimes.

You've never been a Christian?

I have never believed that gods were anything other than characters in books.

justlookinla said:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
and....Yes

You said "It has to do with the fact that there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine" and now you show up with a truck full of them for sale?

I am not buying your perpetual motion machines.

justlookinla said:
For all life.

Specifics, please. What is "more to life" for wolves?

justlookinla said:
You'd have to ask the Darwinists.

You said, "if the only purpose of life is survival of the fittest, to procreate, then cannibalism should be perfectly acceptable." Substantiate it, or retract it. Use wolves as an example.

Ryukil · Feb 9, 2015

Inkfingers said:
Is this a limit on God's power? No. It is no limit on God to say He can only do what is real and what is consistent with cause and effect.

That sounds like a limit on God's power to me...
You sound like a Deist.
The whole point of supernaturalism is that it goes outside of the natural. It goes outside of the pattern of cause and effect and that point.
Or so I thought?
But tell me more, because I'm actually very interested in your line of thinking. I don't know that I've heard it before.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Davian said:
I have never believed that gods were anything other than characters in books.

Ok.

You said "It has to do with the fact that there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine" and now you show up with a truck full of them for sale?

I am not buying your perpetual motion machines.

You're confusing the natural with the spiritual.

Specifics, please. What is "more to life" for wolves?

Nurturing. Procreation. Balance of nature.

You said, "if the only purpose of life is survival of the fittest, to procreate, then cannibalism should be perfectly acceptable." Substantiate it, or retract it. Use wolves as an example.

You asked..."How does "survival of the fittest" as used ina the scientific theory of evolution not allow for behaviours such as wolves not eating their own young?"

Again, you'd have to ask those who claim that life forms are driven by survival of the fittest.....the Darwinists. They would have to explain why wolves do not eat their young.

Ryukil · Feb 9, 2015

TillICollapse said:
Dogs humping legs ?

I was going to use that example as well, but I didn't want to be crass.

Seriously though, when Christians talk about the "desire of the flesh" what they are really talking about is animal behavior. Why is animal behavior sinful?
It's all very interesting. I mean....why are people ashamed of their bodies? That's basically what it comes down to. It's almost like the people who wrote the Bible knew that we are animals and were ashamed of it, so they made a lot of sexual behavior sinful.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Ryukil said:
I was going to use that example as well, but I didn't want to be crass.

Seriously though, when Christians talk about the "desire of the flesh" what they are really talking about is animal behavior. Why is animal behavior sinful?
It's all very interesting. I mean....why are people ashamed of their bodies? That's basically what it comes down to. It's almost like the people who wrote the Bible knew that we are animals and were ashamed of it, so they made a lot of sexual behavior sinful.

You're not married nor do you have children, do you?

Paul of Eugene OR · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
Ok.

You're confusing the natural with the spiritual.

Nurturing. Procreation. Balance of nature.

You asked..."How does "survival of the fittest" as used ina the scientific theory of evolution not allow for behaviours such as wolves not eating their own young?"

Again, you'd have to ask those who claim that life forms are driven by survival of the fittest.....the Darwinists. They would have to explain why wolves do not eat their young.

Many species eat their young. Some others do not.

Your idea of "survival of the fittest" is a parody of what science understands.
Mammals care for their young, and this is something that helps them to survive.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Many species eat their young. Some others do not.

Your idea of "survival of the fittest" is a parody of what science understands.

Wasn't my idea, it was Spencer's and accepted and promoted by Darwin.

Mammals care for their young, and this is something that helps them to survive.

Helps who to survive?

Ryukil · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
Wasn't my idea, it was Spencer's and accepted and promoted by Darwin.

Helps who to survive?

Helps wolves to survive. Helps mammals to survive. Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest on the level of an INDIVIDUAL, it is about survival of the fittest on a GROUP level.

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
You're confusing the natural with the spiritual.

From all that I have gathered in these forums, "spiritual" could be considered synonymous with "imaginary".

If you like, define "spiritual" in a manner that would allow for your perpetual motion machines.

justlookinla said:
Nurturing. Procreation. Balance of nature.

This is life. You alluded to "more". Be specific.

justlookinla said:
You asked..."How does "survival of the fittest" as used ina the scientific theory of evolution not allow for behaviours such as wolves not eating their own young?"

Again, you'd have to ask those who claim that life forms are driven by survival of the fittest.....the Darwinists. They would have to explain why wolves do not eat their young.

That would appear as an admission to not having an understanding of the theory that you rail against.

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

Ryukil said:
Helps wolves to survive. Helps mammals to survive. Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest on the level of an INDIVIDUAL, it is about survival of the fittest on a GROUP level.

It does not seem that justlookinla has fully grasped that concept.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Ryukil said:
Helps wolves to survive. Helps mammals to survive. Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest on the level of an INDIVIDUAL, it is about survival of the fittest on a GROUP level.

From Encyclopedia Britannica....

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as survival of the fittest, where fitness denotes an individuals overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations."

survival of the fittest | biology | Encyclopedia Britannica

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Davian said:
From all that I have gathered in these forums, "spiritual" could be considered synonymous with "imaginary".

It would be in your world, not mine.

If you like, define "spiritual" in a manner that would allow for your perpetual motion machines.

The realm of the eternal God.

This is life. You alluded to "more". Be specific.

I gave you more. I was specific.

That would appear as an admission to not having an understanding of the theory that you rail against.

That would appear you don't wish to ask those who promote the worldview of survival of the fittest the question.

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

Ryukil said:
Helps wolves to survive. Helps mammals to survive. Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest on the level of an INDIVIDUAL, it is about survival of the fittest on a GROUP level.

justlookinla said:
From Encyclopedia Britannica....

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as survival of the fittest, where fitness denotes an individuals overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations."

survival of the fittest | biology | Encyclopedia Britannica

Try this:

""The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as survival of the fittest, where fitness denotes an individuals overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations.""

Take out the bolded parts, and you have an animal that lives well, then dies and goes extinct.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

You don't have an animal driven by the desire to care for it's young.

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
It would be in your world, not mine.

In what way would those two words differ, in any practical sense?

justlookinla said:
The realm of the eternal God.

Gibberish. Try again: Define "spiritual" in a manner that would allow for your perpetual motion machines.

justlookinla said:
I gave you more. I was specific.

No, you didn't. Have you nothing?

justlookinla said:
That would appear you don't wish to ask those who promote the worldview of survival of the fittest the question.

I have. This was your opportunity to substantiate your statement; however, for you to do that you would need to have a basic understanding of the theory. You are tilting at windmills.

justlookinla · Feb 9, 2015

Davian said:
In what way would those two words differ, in any practical sense?

Morality, the view of life after death, viewing another human as more than simply a bag of chemicals, ect.

Gibberish. Try again: Define "spiritual" in a manner that would allow for your perpetual motion machines.

It's only gibberish to your antichrist mindset.

No, you didn't. Have you nothing?

Of course I did. Go back and read it again.

I have. This was your opportunity to substantiate your statement; however, for you to do that you would need to have a basic understanding of the theory. You are tilting at windmills.

If you have, then know the answer.

JacksBratt · Feb 9, 2015

Inkfingers said:
So they all had different digestive tracts and teeth as compared to today?

However God did it, He did it. Hey, He can make a cripple man walk, blind man see, raise people from the dead and walk on water. In fact, He created everything in the first place. So, Ya they were all vegetarian. Everything. See this scripture:

Genesis 1:29-30New King James Version (NKJV)

29 And God said, See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so.

And this will make sense:
Isaiah 11:6New King James Version (NKJV)

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.

And this may help too:

Isaiah 65:25New King James Version (NKJV)

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpents food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
Says the Lord.

Davian · Feb 9, 2015

justlookinla said:
Morality, the view of life after death, viewing another human as more than simply a bag of chemicals, ect.

No, "spiritual" could be imaginary, and you could still beleive that. Anything else?

justlookinla said:
It's only gibberish to your antichrist mindset.

lol. I am no more antiChrist than I am anti-Loch-Ness-monster.

justlookinla said:
Of course I did. Go back and read it again.

Still nothing.

justlookinla said:
If you have, then know the answer.

And you don't, it would appear.

Back to your previous statement. You said, "It has to do with the fact that there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine".

Now you say this is not a fact?

JacksBratt · Feb 9, 2015

Ryukil said:
I think it's such a weird thing to say that animals cannot sin. Chimpanzees commit infanticide. They also kill each other in tribal warfare. Is that not sin?

Animals cannot sin.

I found this so instead of regurgitating it I am going to plagiarizer here.

Mat Slick states: Sin is breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4). The law of God says such things as do not lie, do not steal, etc. These are moral commands and are intended for people--not animals. Animals don't have moral beliefs, nor do they have consciences. Also, animals are not made in the image of God as mankind is (Genesis 1:26) and are not under the moral laws intended for people. Therefore, they cant sin. Animals work off of instinct--not off of moral purpose or obligation to honor God and not with any spiritual connection to God.

Of course, if evolution is what you view as truth, then everything was made from one chance living organism and thus all were made in God's image, or not, and need to be redeemed and all can sin... Not my view.

ihavefoundgod951 · Feb 9, 2015

Watch this
THIRSTY - H2O Introduction on Vimeo

Why did God make it so animals need to eat in order to survive?

fallible

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Finally Old Enough

Regular Member

Regular Member

fallible

fallible

Regular Member

Regular Member

fallible

Regular Member

fallible

Regular Member

Searching for Truth

fallible

Searching for Truth

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency