The flood, and meat eating.

Once again, if you think that the principles of physics, chemistry, etc. have changed, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that change.The whole non-linear time thing is a complete non-starter. As I have said repeatedly, it could be used to hand-wave away anything.It is a useless concept when dealing with phisical evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

How does a cow put on a condom? (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

I guess randman has more faith in a cow's manual dexterity than I do.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I can think of some reasons:First, the topic of this thread is about a supposed time when there was no meat-eating - i.e. no death. The whole idea of "lifespans" is irrelevant.Second, deerbreh's point was about overpopulation. Longer lifespans and more offspring would only aggravate the problem.Third, as I have been trying to explain to randman, this is a science forum. "Maybe this..." and "maybe that..." are not good enough. The Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy forum requires some correlation between the Bible and the outside world. So "goddidit" (altered the reproduction rate, etc.) is not a productive argument here.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Um... what "evidence" would that be now? I'm old and short of memory. All I do recall is you making excuses for not having any evidence.Perhaps you could repeat, or at least, link to something other than handwaving? And yet you still do. Must be my good looks, eh? Nonsense (and off topic).I have been asking you for evidence about meat-eating. For example, show us a fossil T. Rex with big, flat cow-teeth. Or show us a cow-tooth tiger skull. Show us any evidence that has something to do with the topic.I will continue to repeat this as long as you continue to blather about the Big Bang, etc:You can not excuse your complete lack of evidence with "time-travel" hand-waving.Stop doing that. Address the topic. Show us some evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I read somewhere that it may have been a problem with number-base conversion. Didn't the Babylonians use base 60, or some such thing?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But we have all kinds of different environments on earth today: sea level to many thousands of feet in altitude, desert to arctic, every possible variation of "water mineral content, diet, topsoil content, etc."Do we detect vastly different lifespans based on those different environments?Are creation "scientists" doing experiments to try to extend lifespans by changes in environment? Wouldn't your prediction be easy enough to test?-------------Meanwhile, back at the topic:Where's that evidence of no meat-eating? Any veggie-burning T. Rex remains?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

randman,I think everybody but you understood that jar was refering to windfalls as an example of lesser-quality fruit.Do you know anything at all about fruit-growing? It takes a lot of effort to choose the fruit at exactly the right time for picking. Too soon and it's underripe - and you tear off the branch trying to pick it. Too late and it's on the ground.Now, if you pick it up as soon as it touches the ground, it might still be the "best" fruit. But it seems that Cain was impatient and brought a sacrifice that was either underripe or overripe.There is nothing whatsoever in the text to suggest that God required a blood offering. If there is, why haven't you quoted it?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you'd address the issue instead of blithering on and on trying to prove somebody made a mistake. Nonsense. In Message 139, you said: You didn't even mention the supposed "error" about windfalls until later posts.Address the issue: where do you think the Bible says that a blood sacrifice was required?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Okay, here's the entire post that I quoted from, Message 139: Nowhere in that post did you mention word one about jar's supposed "mistake". It appears you can't read your own posts either.If you entered this thread just to point out jar's "mistake", you somehow forgot to mention it at the time. Fair enough. So you agree that the Bible says nothing about a blood sacrifice being required.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Simple yes or no? You should know me better than that. "Fruit of the ground", in the broadest sense, means all plants which we use for food. The parts which grow in the ground - e.g. carrots - are included. So are fruit trees which are rooted in the ground but produce thier fruit above the ground.What we know from the Cain/Abel story is that God was not impressed with Cain's offering. Maybe he picked up apples off the ground. Maybe he picked them off the tree before they were ripe. Maybe he bruised a carrot with his spade.Jar was clearly refering to any or all of those situations. I never thought he meant to imply that Cain's offering was only windfalls - only that that was one possible explanation for the rejection. Stop behaving like a three-year-old and drop the issue.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

In all the wrangling over "the sacrifice", maybe we're losing track of the real point of the story.It seems to me that it wasn't the sacrifice itself that was important - it was Cain's attitude. The Bible doesn't say why God didn't like Cain's offering - maybe because the "why" wasn't important. What was important was Cain's reaction to God:

quote:

---

Gen 4:5 ... And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

---

All God wanted was for Cain to do better next time, but Cain's reaction was to kill his brother. The reaction was irrational. Sin.That's a more important lesson for us than whether or not the sacrifice had to be blood.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.