[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: What About Shellfish???

VERY good point! And yet another example of why God hates Australia!

Australia opens a plethora of cans of worms. One example should suffice: The duck-billed platypus.

The Bible mentions fowl, "going upon all four", All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:20)

I'm not sure whether platypuses (platypii?) qualify as fowl. But on the other hand I know of no other four-legged fowls, so we must either conclude that Leviticus 11:20 is totally superfluous (which would be a blasphemy), or that the platypus is a four-legged fowl.

See? A theological can of worms!

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: What About Shellfish???

"Australia" is just another word for "blasphemous confusion".

Take, for instance, the emu: the Bible references the "fowls of the air" but this creature, although feathered and beaked like a bird, is definitely not of the air. There are more kinds of venomous snake in Australia than on any other continent -- that tells you something about God's feelings toward the place. And, speaking of abominable wildlife, there's Mel Gibson...

And what about those blackfellows? The Sons of Ham went forth and populated Biblical places like Ethiopia (Jeremiah 13:23), but the Bible never says they went anywhere called Australia. And why would they go there, when the continent is about as hospitable as a Tuscon parking lot in August? The abos are abominable puzzlements to the Biblical mind. And, speaking of abominable hominids, there's Mel Gibson...

A nation whose cliche motto is "put another shrimp on the barbie" is a nation which spits in God's eye and eats shellfish despite God's Law. A nation founded upon a population of thieves, cat-burglars, and sheep-molesters is a nation founded on sin. Sin and GLUTTONY and awful acts. And, speaking of abominable acting, there's Mel Gibson...

~~ OEJ

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

The platypus isn't a fowl, it's a mammal. And why has no one mentioned penguins?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What About Shellfish???

I might tentatively suggest that oysters and clams could be classified as stones...

Does that mean that Star-Finder is going to attach clams "down there"?

The platypus isn't a fowl, it's a mammal.

According to your secular doctrine, that'd mean that we'd "evolved" from them. In which case, why don't we have beaks, eh? Ridiculous. You'll be trying to tell us that whales are birds next.

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

According to your secular doctrine, that'd mean that we'd "evolved" from them. Well, while mammalian life evolved from the very first mammal, the Megazostrodon, by now humans and the platypus don't have a whole lot in common. Just because we share an ancestor doesn't mean we're the same in every way, you know. In which case, why don't we have beaks, eh? We never evolved beaks because we don't have a need for them. Ridiculous. You'll be trying to tell us that whales are birds next.

And I suppose you'll be telling me that someone snapped their fingers and *POOF*, there were humans? Now that's ridiculous.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: What About Shellfish???

The platypus isn't a fowl, it's a mammal. And why has no one mentioned penguins?

So if the platypus isn't a fowl, how do you explain Leviticus 11:20? (I knew you weren't paying attention)

And the reason no one mentioned penguins is that we don't need the Bible to tell us penguins are unclean. Penguins often engage in homosexual acts (the fact that male and female penguins look pretty much the same probably doesn't help either). For that reason, they shall burn, come Judgment Day.

The following is an artist's rendering:

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

So if the platypus isn't a fowl, how do you explain Leviticus 11:20? (I knew you weren't paying attention)

Just because somethings creeps up on all fours doesn't make it a fowl. Is a beaver a fowl, for it too lives in the water and crawls on all fours?

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: What About Shellfish???

Just because somethings creeps up on all fours doesn't make it a fowl. Is a beaver a fowl, for it too lives in the water and crawls on all fours?

Nobody said anything about living in water. The point is that Leviticus 11:20 speaks about "fowls that creep, going upon all four". If that verse doesn't refer to platypuses, then what does it refer to?

Beavers are not unclean. As I've pointed out before, beaver juice has been valued for centuries for making medicine.

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

Nobody said anything about living in water. The point is that Leviticus 11:20 speaks about "fowls that creep, going upon all four". If that verse doesn't refer to platypuses, then what does it refer to? A bird with four feet*? I don't know, but I do know it's not talking about platypuses, because they aren't birds.

Beavers are not unclean. As I've pointed out before, beaver juice has been valued for centuries for making medicine.

That's gross.

*: Gryphons

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What About Shellfish???

Well, while mammalian life evolved from the very first mammal, the Megazostrodon...

You secularists're not even trying to sound plausible anymore. Let me guess, the Megazostrodon evolved into a human so it could battle the deceptacons better?

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

You secularists're not even trying to sound plausible anymore. Let me guess, the Megazostrodon evolved into a human so it could battle the deceptacons better?

*Rolls her eyes* You silly creationists. Your Biblical heros, the Deceptacons, aren't real. The Megazostrodon was the first mammal on this planet, and it lived alongside the dinosaurs. It was a mouse-like creature and probably evolved into other mouse-like creatures. Maybe even, can it be?, mice!

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What About Shellfish???

*Rolls her eyes* You silly creationists. Your Biblical heros, the Deceptacons, aren't real. The Megazostrodon was the first mammal on this planet, and it lived alongside the dinosaurs. It was a mouse-like creature and probably evolved into other mouse-like creatures. Maybe even, can it be?, mice!

Why didn't the dinosaurs just eat it then? Your theories just don't add up.

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

Why didn't the dinosaurs just eat it then? Your theories just don't add up.

I'm sure a fair bit were eaten by dinosaurs, however, they multiplied so fast it would've been pretty difficult to eat the entire species. They were also nocturnal animals, and avoided a good number of predators under cover of darkness.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What About Shellfish???

I'm sure a fair bit were eaten by dinosaurs, however, they multiplied so fast it would've been pretty difficult to eat the entire species.

How did they first emerge? Did the whole species emerge from just one or two prototypes? Because if so, the dinosaurs could just have eaten those two, and then they'd be fine. Or are you claiming all the fishes just turned into Megazostrodons at once? And if they're called Megazostrodons, why weren't they bigger?

[WickedWitch]

Re: What About Shellfish???

How did they first emerge? The same way everything else did. Through millenia of adaptations, genetic mutations, and natural selection. Did the whole species emerge from just one or two prototypes? That would be as ridiculous as saying that all of humanity came from just two people. So the answer is no. Very slowly, they began to change, one* generation at a time. Because if so, the dinosaurs could just have eaten those two, and then they'd be fine. They came to be over generations of evolution. A reptile didn't spontaneously give birth to a mammal one day. Like I've said, over a long period of time, the species began to change to suit its needs and to adapt to its environment, and this happened through the generations. Or are you claiming all the fishes just turned into Megazostrodons at once? Their ancestors weren't fish, they were reptiles. And evolution doesn't happen "all at once", like your creationism fairytale. And if they're called Megazostrodons, why weren't they bigger?

How should I know? I didn't name the little bastards!

*: Not literally one generation at a time.