After the flood, what did the Carnivors eat???

I wish i could say i had a clue what you 2 are talking about, lol, but i don't

Whew, over my head. I'll just waith for Josuas synopsis.
Ok, i want to throw this in.
Genesis 1, HaAdam is created, male and female (AB- blood).
Chapter 2 Adam is sedated, genetics removed and creating Wah (Eve) making Adam (A-blood) and Eve (B-blood).
Then the O- with the seduction (Samael)added in for the first birth bearing 2 sets of twins. First Cain and his twin sister having a mix of B- and O-, and Abel and his twin sister (Seth replacing this bloodlne later)having the A- and B- mixed blood. How would that fit? reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: Gazrok

Forget the two years, what did they eat for the 40 days? Or what did the others eat? You know how much hay two horses would eat in 40 days?

Small horse , big horse ,baby horse ?

In the first few weeks of their lives, baby horses eat only milk from their mothers, being dependent of them. Soon after that, they will begin to add grass, besides mother’s milk, to their meal. When they reach the age of 2 or 3 months, their mothers will stop feeding them with milk, baby horses being forced to search other sources of nutrition to complete the meal. It is recommended that young horses should find feed apart from the place where his mother is eating. The amount of food that foals can eat in a day can reach about three kilos and they will need more as they grow in size and age.

babyanimalfacts.com... One cow can produce a lot of milk for a lot of babies ...Babies take time before they can start to eat grass ...just saying

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Jewish Kosher laws are extremely 'clean' and existed for millennia before anyone had a concept of bacteria. They are highly compliant with the best practices for cleanliness used in modern medicine.

That is only for ritualistic ceremonial purposes in the old testament. It had nothing to do with germs and washing hands before eating. It was all about being clean for rituals.

And you know that because?
You want us to have our faith in your word?

Religious atheists everywhere now days

It says it right in the bible. Cleaning of hands was specifically for religious ceremonies, not about illness or germs.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Because, as we all know, populations by definition do not consist of individuals? 'Course not.

How is it productive in a conversation to just repeat the same nonsense you already said? I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim that 2 individuals isolated from a population could start a new viable population without sharing genes with the rest of the population.

How might a 'speciating' change, a change that causes significant incompatibility to the ancestor species, get out into an existing population of any organism that breeds sexually? Surely the ancestor population is incompatible to breed with any of the 'speciated' offspring.

MVP is about isolation, as I clearly said above. Speciation takes thousands to millions of generations with individuals sharing genes with the group. You don't have a sudden speciation, you have slight change over time that adds up enough so that the ORIGINAL could not breed with the CURRENT population. That type of change doesn't happen in a single generation in animal life.

Can you provide a viable methodology for propagation of such a terminal genetic change? Until you can, it isn't valid to even theorize about these 'magically appearing' populations that cannot breed with their 'ancestor' species.

You cannot rationally explain the rise of new species until you resolve that conundrum.

Again, this doesn't make sense. Evolution is about populations increasing the frequency of certain alleles. You don't seem to comprehend that speciation takes a long time and is based on the accumulation of numerous genetic mutations. This isn't even remotely related to MVP, unless the 2 individuals are completely isolated from the rest of the population and never share genes with them.

We know new species do arise (at reasonably fast generational speed exceeding what might be expected of gradualism and also in un-partitioned populations, too). Evolutionary theories don't explain it. There is a gap in the rationality of the process.

Again, you are going to need to explain this in detail, because it makes no sense. What are you even trying to say? There is no set speed to evolution, it varies depending on the environment.

But surely evolution represents incest on a phenomenal scale. The same genome with a few minor mutations at each step gets passed though hundreds of billions of species from the initial pre-organism, to the outer branches of the phylogenetic tree. Under evolution, every species is incestuously related (from a genetic view-point).

Wrong. Yes, they are related in the long term, but it's completely disingenuous to suggest that being slightly related is the same as 2 individuals starting a new population with exclusively incest and creating a population. It doesn't work, unless we are talking about single celled organisms that reproduce asexually.

The MVP is only applicable for animal populations in the wild with the pressures of natural selection operating on the populations. The MVP is entirely inapplicable in the situation absent normal selection pressures.

Complete nonsense. Humans can control the process some times, but we are talking about 2 isolated individuals starting a population and that's impossible, unless humans are manually changing the genes. Of course I'm referring to the wild.

I did not actually suggest that a single mutation was speciating, however, even when accumulated genetic change becomes speciating, how does that get into the population?

This has already been answered. They share genes with the rest of the population. With 2 isolated individuals, there is nobody to share genes with except themselves. You are completely confusing the concept of MVP.

Populations of a single species might breed but different species can't breed together and share genes. As soon as a change arises or accumulates that would be 'speciating', it is terminal because it has no compatible mate and the new genome cannot 'spread' into the population.

Once again you show that you have no idea what speciation is. It's not an individual suddenly becoming incapable of breeding with the previous generation. It takes a long time. The population is slowly changing over time. It takes at minimum thousands of generations in order for speciation to occur and it only applies to the original population when compared to the current one. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden you have a new species that can't breed with the predecessors.

I did not write about minimum viable population in the preceding paragraph at all. I wrote about 'speciating' changes and suggested that any spread to create a population was 'magical thinking'.

Yes, and that's complete nonsense, as I clearly outlined. There is nothing magical about accumulating small changes and breeding them into the population over time. That's not the same as 2 isolated individuals. You seem to be confusing those 2 concepts.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Jewish Kosher laws are extremely 'clean' and existed for millennia before anyone had a concept of bacteria. They are highly compliant with the best practices for cleanliness used in modern medicine.

That is only for ritualistic ceremonial purposes in the old testament. It had nothing to do with germs and washing hands before eating. It was all about being clean for rituals.

And you know that because?
You want us to have our faith in your word?

Religious atheists everywhere now days

It says it right in the bible. Cleaning of hands was specifically for religious ceremonies, not about illness or germs.

Because?

a reply to: bulwarkz

And what does that have to do with the fact they had such an incorrect view of reality that didn’t know viruses and bacteria exist, males decide the sex of the child , the earth revolves around sun and that the stars were not actually falling out of the sky during meteor showers..

And that is just a few objective proofs.. when it come ms to subjective stuff like slavery and rape.. they were just monsters.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Because?

Practically everybody at the time was covered in filth, and you don't want your nice, new Ark of the Covenant to get all gunked up by people who use their fingers for toilet paper.

Here animals eat dirt And here humans eat it as well just saying

I do not think people who believe the myth of the Ark as literal happenings to be intelligent at all. There I said it.
We can try the same method today and it will not work. Evidence vs faith, if you refuse evidence, you are unintelligent.
Sorry not sorry.

a reply to: Soulece

Really ?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: bulwarkz

And what does that have to do with the fact they had such an incorrect view of reality that didn’t know viruses and bacteria exist, males decide the sex of the child , the earth revolves around sun and that the stars were not actually falling out of the sky during meteor showers..

And that is just a few objective proofs.. when it come ms to subjective stuff like slavery and rape.. they were just monsters.

wait, did you just now make all that stuff up? I will tell you what, at least you are as good as anyone in past history to weave crazy stories for your own strawman.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Soulece

Really ?

Why did you reply with just 'really' and link us to a youtube video about reality being an illusion?
If I were to bounce off that, would you not think it would be an illusion you're believing that Noah's Ark in fact happened because what we know about the real world defies it? We're going off physical evidence vs stories that cannot be proven other than believing the words it says. Now what about this illusion thing again?

a reply to: Soulece

If I were to bounce off that, would you not think it would be an illusion you're believing that Noah's Ark in fact happened because what we know about the real world defies it? We're going off physical evidence vs stories that cannot be proven other than believing the words it says. Now what about this illusion thing again?

I am not sure what part about Noah and the Ark you think is not possible because it was a boat with some people and animals on it . There are things we could say about it from the text and things we probably shouldn't say about it . Was it all literal , probably not .Does it contain metaphor , probably . Was there a boat with people and animals on it , probably .

So the thing about illusion which seems to be something we live in is that it means there is no real material . Sounds like quite the statement but that is what the professional scientist tell us ...funny that..something we can see feel and touch really does not exist .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Soulece

If I were to bounce off that, would you not think it would be an illusion you're believing that Noah's Ark in fact happened because what we know about the real world defies it? We're going off physical evidence vs stories that cannot be proven other than believing the words it says. Now what about this illusion thing again?

I am not sure what part about Noah and the Ark you think is not possible because it was a boat with some people and animals on it . There are things we could say about it from the text and things we probably shouldn't say about it . Was it all literal , probably not .Does it contain metaphor , probably . Was there a boat with people and animals on it , probably .


So the thing about illusion which seems to be something we live in is that it means there is no real material . Sounds like quite the statement but that is what the professional scientist tell us ...funny that..something we can see feel and touch really does not exist .

The amount of species to have 2 of on a boat is ridiculous. Not a whole lot of time has passed since the time of Noahs Ark in the general time frame it takes for mutations and well.. creation of new species to occur. This is counter intuitive to the notion that there are all these species of animals. Fun fact, there are more species of Dinosaurs that once existed to have 2 copies of every on a boat, so why would you think there was enough for 2 of every animal? I challenge that claim, and look forward to your response.
Furthermore, it states 2 of every animal, so metaphor or not, scripture states 2 of "ALL" animals. There is no some here and there, it says all.
Thirdly, these species of animals hunt each other as it is in its food chain. If it is not, how did the animal survive without eating other animals as I 100% guarantee you that not every animal is a herbivore. A person looking to fill that gab will grasp with the notion that "God took power over these animals and told them not to eat each other" which is a complete illogical assumption and an assumption given not by fact in scripture but by what the persons limited mind can come up with for an excuse. That again, is going off faith. So I challenge you, how did they not prey on each other?
There's plenty more.

Now, the illusion thing has no baring in this argument whatsoever. I hope you understand that. "This physical world isnt real" has zero impact on the debate of was Noahs arc real or not. Don't just shoe horn that in.

a reply to: Soulece

The amount of species to have 2 of on a boat is ridiculous. Not a whole lot of time has passed since the time of Noahs Ark in the general time frame it takes for mutations and well.. creation of new species to occur. This is counter intuitive to the notion that there are all these species of animals. Fun fact, there are more species of Dinosaurs that once existed to have 2 copies of every on a boat, so why would you think there was enough for 2 of every animal? I challenge that claim, and look forward to your response. Furthermore, it states 2 of every animal, so metaphor or not, scripture states 2 of "ALL" animals. There is no some here and there, it says all. Thirdly, these species of animals hunt each other as it is in its food chain. If it is not, how did the animal survive without eating other animals as I 100% guarantee you that not every animal is a herbivore. A person looking to fill that gab will grasp with the notion that "God took power over these animals and told them not to eat each other" which is a complete illogical assumption and an assumption given not by fact in scripture but by what the persons limited mind can come up with for an excuse. That again, is going off faith. So I challenge you, how did they not prey on each other? There's plenty more.

Have you considered that the flood story is only a part of the whole world that they knew existed at that time and in that place ? You have to understand that the people at that time knew nothing of North America or other places around the earth . The new testament teaches that Paul took the word to the whole world but understanding the context to that statement means that it was only in a small world view they had at the time .

The Bible has a context that is old and so trying to make it say something in the 21st century it didn't say in the first century is a mistake and you will miss out on the message of the text and the culture it was written in . As a example imagine someone reading the text we write today being read by someone over a thousand years in the future .They are probably going to think we were pretty dumb for thinking and doing the things we are doing today . Science text books get re-vised and re-written all the time because of new discoveries being made . Finding animals alive we thought were extinct while finding new ones we never knew existed . The Bible has a theme and a running narrative that is consistent and it has a promise of eternal life ...just saying

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Soulece

The amount of species to have 2 of on a boat is ridiculous. Not a whole lot of time has passed since the time of Noahs Ark in the general time frame it takes for mutations and well.. creation of new species to occur. This is counter intuitive to the notion that there are all these species of animals. Fun fact, there are more species of Dinosaurs that once existed to have 2 copies of every on a boat, so why would you think there was enough for 2 of every animal? I challenge that claim, and look forward to your response. Furthermore, it states 2 of every animal, so metaphor or not, scripture states 2 of "ALL" animals. There is no some here and there, it says all. Thirdly, these species of animals hunt each other as it is in its food chain. If it is not, how did the animal survive without eating other animals as I 100% guarantee you that not every animal is a herbivore. A person looking to fill that gab will grasp with the notion that "God took power over these animals and told them not to eat each other" which is a complete illogical assumption and an assumption given not by fact in scripture but by what the persons limited mind can come up with for an excuse. That again, is going off faith. So I challenge you, how did they not prey on each other? There's plenty more.

Have you considered that the flood story is only a part of the whole world that they knew existed at that time and in that place ? You have to understand that the people at that time knew nothing of North America or other places around the earth . The new testament teaches that Paul took the word to the whole world but understanding the context to that statement means that it was only in a small world view they had at the time .

The Bible has a context that is old and so trying to make it say something in the 21st century it didn't say in the first century is a mistake and you will miss out on the message of the text and the culture it was written in . As a example imagine someone reading the text we write today being read by someone over a thousand years in the future .They are probably going to think we were pretty dumb for thinking and doing the things we are doing today . Science text books get re-vised and re-written all the time because of new discoveries being made . Finding animals alive we thought were extinct while finding new ones we never knew existed . The Bible has a theme and a running narrative that is consistent and it has a promise of eternal life ...just saying

I can 100% buy into the fact that it could be only part of the actual story, as could the entirety of the bible itself. Im a firm believer that the bible is full of metaphors and parables because of the lack of knowledge of the common man at that time let alone the geniuses of the time. The thing is, how are we to explain the ark using this information of parables. The leading theory on my mind would be dna strands. But thats too alien/matrix/far out thinking. Everything is speculation. I always challenge speculation, even my own.

a reply to: Soulece

The thing is, how are we to explain the ark using this information of parables. The leading theory on my mind would be dna strands. But thats too alien/matrix/far out thinking. Everything is speculation. I always challenge speculation, even my own.

Not so much a parable but maybe as a type of salvation ...Take the number 8 as in 8 people . 8 represents a new beginning , 7 days in a week and the 8th day is the beginning of the new week . Anyone in the Ark was saved from the judgement ...Jesus's name numerically is 888 in gemetria . Believing in Him gives newness of life . 2 Cor. 5:22 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Its hard to just let the Bible be the Bible . Its not a scientific document . It has all kinds of literary genre and is layered .Its main point is on the spiritual aspect of man and Gods relationship with us. Like our parents seemed unreasonable at times when we were growing up so too God seems to be unreasonable until you find out and understand what is really going on .

But God does require we use faith to approach Him . What He wants to give us we can't earn and we sure don't deserve it .

a reply to: bulwarkz

WHAT?!?!

So you are saying the ancient Hebrews secretly knew all that stuff, they just lied about it in their writings?!?!

Or are you saying that they didn’t say rape and slavery were acceptable??

Either way I’m not the one who is telling crazy stories..

a reply to: Soulece

Everything is not speculation..

It just doesn’t contain an accurate history of creation.

Literally every single testable claim in the Bible is easily debunked, and the claims that are not testable are just crazy as hell..

And by testable claims I mean,

1) could a boat the size of the ark hold 2 of every land species??

Not even close..

2) can 2 Individuals use incest to create a species??

No .. not even close..

3) was the universe and earth created in days??

No .. not even close.

4) were the oceans created before the stars??

No .. not even close..

5)exc, exc, exc..

Shouldn’t the ordained word of god have gotten at least something besides TOTALLY subjective moral quandaries right??

a reply to: Soulece

The New Testament doesn’t get a whole lot right either..

1) the Romans never made people travel to their birth countries for a census..

2) I think Mathew and mark disagree on Day jesus is crusifued and what happens directly after the crucifixion.

Exc exc