Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[Pudgy]

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

Yes, and yes.

And, I'm glad you have opinion, even though it happens to be complete nonsense.

If you want to refute the argument I've put forth then go here:

And, please do your best to apply conventions of logical constructs in your attempt at refutation. Cartoons won't work for that.

[Pudgy]

28 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

period.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

period.

Impressive. You know how to spell period. Apparently you have no refutation of the argument put forth. Fine.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The above argument is modus ponens. (Look it up!) This form of argument is valid, which leads us to the premises found within it.

You seem to be discussing cultural differences that are not based on scripture. It is important to distinguish between the two. If you have come across situations where dead animals with blood are being consumed, that might be your personal experience. However, it is incorrect to assume that all Christians or individuals from similar cultures automatically engage in activities such as hunting or survivalism. Let us focus on discussing reality without resorting to insults or sarcasm. It seems that certain individuals here, perhaps "pudgy", treat people differently, showing respect to some but not to others.

I don't see it coming from him in your case. What most people usually do is go to the grocery store to purchase meat that still carries traces of blood.

To truly be regarded as an intellectual, one must recognize that any scientific or philosophical theories labeled as "unfalsifiable" are ultimately limited to human calculations, whereas God's understanding surpasses them all.

[Pudgy]

When a fantasy and a bald faced lie is presented as an “arguement”, it stands alone.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

When a fantasy an a bald faced lie is presented as an “arguement”, it stands alone.

Three things:

1) Your statement that I've lied is an assertion. The burden of proof for any assertion is born solely by the person making the assertion, which in this case is you. So, where's your evidence that I've lied? Where?

2) And, please read this slowly, saying something is not true does not make that something not true. Please read that again.

3) So far you've demonstrated no ability to critique an argument. Guess they didn't teach that in engineering school.

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

You seem to be discussing cultural differences that are not based on scripture. It is important to distinguish between the two. If you have come across situations where dead animals with blood are being consumed, that might be your personal experience. However, it is incorrect to assume that all Christians or individuals from similar cultures automatically engage in activities such as hunting or survivalism. Let us focus on discussing reality without resorting to insults or sarcasm. It seems that certain individuals here, perhaps "pudgy", treat people differently, showing respect to some but not to others.

I don't see it coming from him in your case. What most people usually do is go to the grocery store to purchase meat that still carries traces of blood.

Please take note that the modus ponens argument you cite does, in each of its two premises provide biblical evidence that they are true.

Also, the subject is not about what Christians would do. That's a red herring, which is fallacy. The subject here is pre-flood food.

Finally, what I've presented is as real as it gets. You just don't like what that leads. Alternatively, you could always offer logical refutation.

[George88]

2 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Please take note that the modus ponens argument you cite does, in each of its two premises provide biblical evidence that they are true.

Your reasoning is flawed as it relies solely on present-day logic, without considering the wisdom of pre-flood analogies. Therefore, I believe your uninformed viewpoint to be a fallacy, lacking foundation in scripture and driven by your subjective opinion.

4 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Also, the subject is not about what Christians would do. That's a red herring, which is fallacy. The subject here is pre-flood food.

Your lack of understanding and refusal to read things correctly are clear signs of you taking a superior stance.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Finally, what I've presented is as real as it gets. You just don't like what that leads. Alternatively, you could always offer logical refutation.

Considering your assertion that other opinions are restricted, it would be equitable to point out that your own opinions are simply unverified.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your reasoning is flawed as it relies solely on present-day logic, without considering the wisdom of pre-flood analogies. Therefore, I believe your uninformed viewpoint to be a fallacy, lacking foundation in scripture and driven by your subjective opinion.

I've provided ancient source material as evidence in support of both premises offered in the argument I put forth. You do agree that the biblical record is a bona fide account of things we should accept as true. Don't you? The text of Ps. 19 tells us to accept God's testimony of creation. Creation tells us that animals dead of themselves is a kind of food eaten since creation. Either you accept God's testimony by His creation, or you do not. Which is it? Genesis 6:21 is a direct, word-for-word, statement made to Noah. These evidences are not mine. These evidences are found in the Bible you say you live by.

So, I've offered no opinion. I've offered testable evidence. My argument is falsifiable. But you've not refuted it. You just don't like where it leads.

The argument remains, and it is here waiting for refutation:

 

[George88]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I've provided ancient source material as evidence in support of both premises offered in the argument I put forth. You do agree that the biblical record is a bona fide account of things we should accept as true. Don't you? The text of Ps. 19 tells us to accept God's testimony of creation.

All we have for the time frame is conjecture, which means there is no concrete evidence to support it, apart from your personal opinion that it might have occurred. Speculation, being the weakest form of evidence, should be avoided.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

So, I've offered no opinion. I've offered testable evidence. My argument is falsifiable. But you've not refuted it. You just don't like where it leads.

Your stance is the worst kind of theory when it comes to any situation linked to a scholarly review. Thus, according to biblical principles, it presents a fallacy influenced by bias.

 

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

The argument remains, and it is here waiting for refutation:

The argument is solely yours to keep. A wise individual has already reached their conclusions based on concrete evidence, whether you accept it or not. You do not possess the ultimate authority here; evidence and God do.

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, George88 said:

All we have for the time frame is conjecture, which means there is no concrete evidence to support it, apart from your personal opinion that it might have occurred. Speculation, being the weakest form of evidence, should be avoided.

So you reject the biblical assertion that we should accept God's testimony of Himself through His creation? (Ref Ps 19; Rom 1:20) I don't. Which means I don't find it conjecture to listen to and accept the testimony of God's creation all around us.

 

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your stance is the worst kind of theory when it comes to any situation linked to a scholarly review. Thus, according to biblical principles, it presents a fallacy influenced by bias.

I've offered testable evidence. My argument is falsifiable. But you've not refuted it. You just don't like where it leads.

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

The argument is solely yours to keep. A wise individual has already reached their conclusions based on concrete evidence, whether you accept it or not. You do not possess the ultimate authority here; evidence and God do.

Of course I don't possess "the ultimate authority here". That's a distracting red herring, which is fallacy.

What's I've done it present an argument logical in form, the premises of which are solidly evidenced by biblical text. The argument is falsifiable, only you haven't refuted a single piece of it as false.

The argument remains, and it is here waiting for refutation: