Carnivores and the Fall

The Barbarian said:

A literal reading of Genesis says nothing about a whimsical God suddenly changing all sorts of plants and animals.

Click to expand...

Really? Maybe, next time you should try these first...





The rest of us can see what it says quite easily. Why? We have no desire to suppress Biblical truth.



By the way. They work great once you get used to them.









Have a nice Day.

The Barbarian said:

One of the problems with inventing new interpretations of scripture, is you then have to invent all sorts of unscriptural things to support them. A literal reading of Genesis says nothing about a whimsical God suddenly changing all sorts of plants and animals.

Better to accept scripture as it is, not as one might wish it to be.

Click to expand...

You know whats strange?

If you read the early commentaries from the Early Church Fathers up to the 17th century, the vast majority of these scholars and leaders read and understood Genesis chapter one and two as literal days and never read into the text the idea of millions or billions of years. Some argued for a shorter period of time (one day, one hour, one minute, one instant), nearly none said anything about the days being longer than 6 literal rotations of the Earth.

Only in the 18th century when the naturalistic interpretation of geologic evidence supposed millions of years had passed on Earth do you see a sharp change in the commentaries "interpretation" of the Genesis one and two.

Nothing in the text suggest anything but 6 literal days of Creation, which God did to structure our own work week. A plain reading of Genesis one does not allow for the theory of neo-Darwinism or the hypothesis of billions of years.

God created with maturity. Adam is a great example of that. Two minutes after Adam was formed, a biologist examining him would come to the conclusion Adam was a mature adult male (no younger than 16) but he would not be able to know the truth, which is that Adam is only two minutes old in reality. He would need an eyewitness to know that, and guess what Genesis one and two are? God's eyewitness account of creation.

Jig said:

You know whats strange?

If you read the early commentaries from the Early Church Fathers up to the 17th century, the vast majority of these scholars and leaders read and understood Genesis chapter one and two as literal days and never read into the text the idea of millions or billions of years. Some argued for a shorter period of time (one day, one hour, one minute, one instant), nearly none said anything about the days being longer than 6 literal rotations of the Earth.

Only in the 18th century when the naturalistic interpretation of geologic evidence supposed millions of years had passed on Earth do you see a sharp change in the commentaries "interpretation" of the Genesis one and two.

Nothing in the text suggest anything but 6 literal days of Creation, which God did to structure our own work week. A plain reading of Genesis one does not allow for the theory of neo-Darwinism or the hypothesis of billions of years.

Click to expand...

This is a hackneyed counter-example but it bears repeating.

If you read the early commentaries from the Early Church Fathers up to the 15th century, the vast majority of these scholars and leaders read and understood the many Biblical references to a geocentric universe as literal.

Only in the 16th century when the naturalistic interpretation of astronomical evidence supposed that the earth went around the sun do you see a sharp change in the commentaries and their references to heliocentricity.

That an interpretation came about only when the appropriate science arose to understand it, does not show that it is wrong.

You know whats strange?

If you read the early commentaries from the Early Church Fathers up to the 17th century, the vast majority of these scholars and leaders read and understood Genesis chapter one and two as literal days

Click to expand...

Of course, the greatest Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, realized that it couldn't be so, and clearly showed they couldn't be literal days.

You've been misled on this point.

and never read into the text the idea of millions or billions of years. Some argued for a shorter period of time (one day, one hour, one minute, one instant), nearly none said anything about the days being longer than 6 literal rotations of the Earth.

Click to expand...

Augustine said that they weren't periods of time at all, but rather categories of creation. Like all the other people at the time, the idea of billions of years was just off the screen for him. No doubt he would have been stunned to know it. But he would have adapted. For Augustine, reality and God could not be in contradiction, and he warned his fellow Christians not to be stupid about that.

I suggest you listen to Augustine. You are doing making it harder for unbelievers to come to God.

Nothing in the text suggest anything but 6 literal days of Creation,

Click to expand...

Various things in the text show that a literalist interpretation brings up logical absurdities, such as mornings and evenings with no sun to produce them.

God created with maturity. Adam is a great example of that. Two minutes after Adam was formed, a biologist examining him would come to the conclusion Adam was a mature adult male (no younger than 16)

Click to expand...

That's not Scriptural at all. You just made some numbers up to make Genesis acceptable to you.

Jig said:

God created with maturity. Adam is a great example of that. Two minutes after Adam was formed, a biologist examining him would come to the conclusion Adam was a mature adult male (no younger than 16)

Click to expand...

Would you also argue that God created Adam with scars, bruises, and other signs of history? Because the earth not only looks old, but shows signs of history, including craters, fossils, and igneous dykes. What kind of god would create a world with false history?

OK gentlemen...

Just ignore what is known, and both sides can keep arguing with their eyes closed like their minds are.

Here it is again. Take a read. Find out what both Young Earthers and Theory of Evolutioners keep failing to see.


http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html


YEC's and TOE's are today's version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. They keep shooting at each other and missing, while those who are finding truth travel around their cloud of smoke, and on to the promised land.



And, that cloud keeps getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

Really?

Click to expand...

Yep. It's why you didn't offer any examples. There aren't any.

The rest of us can see what it says quite easily.

Click to expand...

You got a couple of mice in your pocket? The rest of us don't seem to agree with you.

Why? We have no desire to suppress Biblical truth.

Click to expand...

You're adding your own material to the Bible, because it's unacceptable to you as it is.

genez said:

OK gentlemen...

Just ignore what is known, and both sides can keep arguing with their eyes closed like their minds are.

Here it is again. Take a read. Find out what both Young Earthers and Theory of Evolutioners keep failing to see.


http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html


YEC's and TOE's are today's version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. They keep shooting at each other and missing, while those who are finding truth travel around their cloud of smoke, and on to the promised land.



And, that cloud keeps getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing the OEC gap and day age theology with TE/CE theology. There might be some TE/CE that follow gap or day age theology, but I do not know of any here personally.

The Barbarian said:

Various things in the text show that a literalist interpretation brings up logical absurdities, such as mornings and evenings with no sun to produce them.

Click to expand...

You do not need the sun for evening and morning. Any light source works. Evening and morning come and go as the Earth rotates.

That's not Scriptural at all. You just made some numbers up to make Genesis acceptable to you.

Click to expand...

The literal interpretation of the creation of man has Adam being created fully formed and mature. The numbers I gave were made up, but are not necessary for my point to be realized. Adam was not created as an infant, thus he held an appearance of maturity which could be indentified as actual age without the proper understanding of his original formation.

Mallon said:

Would you also argue that God created Adam with scars, bruises, and other signs of history? Because the earth not only looks old, but shows signs of history, including craters, fossils, and igneous dykes. What kind of god would create a world with false history?

Click to expand...

Adam would have had hair, fingernails, toenails, and skin. All of which are 'dead' and have a rate of growth that can be measured, though at various consistencies. The top layer of skin were cells that were at one point living and got pushed to the their location by newer cells forming underneath, thus casting these cells further from a blood source and eventually killing them.

Would you call this false history since none of these "measurable" factors actually took place? Adam surely needed hair, nails, and certainly skin to live. Creating him with this maturity was a necessity.

God created a planet "ready" for life. What's the big deal? Most of this "false history" you cite is easily explained by a global flood (E.g. fossils, etc.).

Imaginosis said:

If there were no carnivores before the Fall, then what did our current carnivores resemble before the Fall, their anatomy and physiology? What about Saber Toothed Tigers, for example?

Click to expand...

No death before the fall. No eating each other. no need for utensils.
The snake is the example. Before the fall it didn't look like a snake but was still of the snake kind.
So everything on earth would probably not be recognized today but was the same kinds of animals as today.
Different looks but same folks.

Jig said:

Adam would have had hair, fingernails, toenails, and skin. All of which are 'dead' and have a rate of growth that can be measured, though at various consistencies. The top layer of skin were cells that were at one point living and got pushed to the their location by newer cells forming underneath, thus casting these cells further from a blood source and eventually killing them.

Would you call this false history since none of these "measurable" factors actually took place? Adam surely needed hair, nails, and certainly skin to live. Creating him with this maturity was a necessity.

Click to expand...

You just avoided my question. Did God create Adam with calluses and scars and other signs of a past history? Because the earth shows similar signs of having been bombarded by meteorites, ancient volcanism, etc. The earth doesn't just look old, it looks like it has a long history not recorded in the Bible.

God created a planet "ready" for life. What's the big deal? Most of this "false history" you cite is easily explained by a global flood (E.g. fossils, etc.).

Click to expand...

But if you're willing to admit that God created the world to look old, how can you then argue that the fossils and tectonic events that its rocks record were deposited by a flood? How can you say x rocks were specially made by God to look that way, but y rocks were deposited by the Flood? This just doesn't seem like an honest approach.

RobertByers said:

No death before the fall. No eating each other. no need for utensils.
The snake is the example. Before the fall it didn't look like a snake but was still of the snake kind.
So everything on earth would probably not be recognized today but was the same kinds of animals as today.
Different looks but same folks.

Click to expand...

Fangs are for eating dust

Mallon said:

[/b]
You just avoided my question. Did God create Adam with calluses and scars and other signs of a past history? Because the earth shows similar signs of having been bombarded by meteorites, ancient volcanism, etc. The earth doesn't just look old, it looks like it has a long history not recorded in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I showed examples of how Adam would have had so-called "signs" that could be interpretated as actual past history: hair, nails, and skin. As for scars and calluses, I can not know for sure. This reminds me of the question, "Did Adam have a navel scar?" Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

Anyway, as for the Earth's "scars", it is not the visual evidence that is the problem, both old and young Earth positions use the same evidence. What is different is thier perspective and interprtational philosophies: such as uniformitarianism, catastrophism, and naturalism for example. This leads to greatly different world view points. Some say the world "looks" old, some say the evidence points to a dramtically younger Earth then what is assumed in the current scientific stasis-quo model. Either way there is bias effecting conclusions.

Impact craters could have originated during several possible episodes at different epochs. One possibility is that craters could be primordial. That is, they could have been caused by events during Creation Week. On Day Four, the planets and satellites could have been formed from material that was created in the creative acts of Genesis 1:1. Assembly of components would naturally involve collisions that could have left the craters.

Another possibility is that major cratering episodes may have occurred more than once. Maybe there were two major cratering episodes. The first was connected with Creation Week, or more likely the Fall shortly thereafter. The second episode occurred at the time of the Flood, perhaps even related to the cause of the events in Gen. 7:11.

But if you're willing to admit that God created the world to look old

Click to expand...

My position holds that God created with maturity. You interpret this maturity as actual age, this is assumed. Remember, we both believe that God created supernaturally. This means science (which does not and cannot venture off its naturalistic means) will never be able to define this creation event. The only way we can understand what happened is if we have an eyewitness account. That account is found in Genesis chapter one.

how can you then argue that the fossils and tectonic events that its rocks record were deposited by a flood?

Click to expand...

The Scriptures say there was a global flood, if I believe this (and I do) I should be able to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the planet. Too bad we only see millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the planet.

The things needed to make a fossil are rapid death, rapid burial, and rapid pressure. A global catastrophic fast formed flood would cause rapid death, rapid burial, and rapid pressure on many things in its path. The uniformitarian model is very weak when explaining fossils, the Noahic Flood is a much better model.

How can you say x rocks were specially made by God to look that way, but y rocks were deposited by the Flood? This just doesn't seem like an honest approach.

Click to expand...

I am saying that both this ingrained maturity and the catastrophic global flood allows for those who hold naturalism as their personal bias to interpret the evidence to support billions of years.

What is not honest is saying that we can understand our origins and how our universe came to be by using philosophies and methods that only allow for natural explanations.

Assyrian said:

Fangs are for eating dust

Click to expand...

Fruit bats have very sharp fangs, yet these are used to bite into fruit.
Picture of teeth:

Panda bears have very sharp fangs too, yet primarily eats bamboo and rarely eats meat.
Picture of teeth:

You quote other examples of animals having the wrong utensils for their diet as evidence God provided the right utensils for Saber Toothed Tigers after the fall?

jereth said:

I wish YECists would stop twisting the plain meaning of the text.

Genesis 1:29-30 say (paraphrase) "God gave the plants to animals and humans for food".

This is a statement about the purpose of plants, not about the diet of animals.

Here's a parallel:
"Ford makes cars for people to drive as vehicles."

This does not mean: "Cars are the only kind of vehicle that Ford wants people to drive. People shouldn't be driving vans, trucks, 4WDs, buses, etc."


It really does seem that YECists have traded in sensible interpretation (not to mention common sense) in favour of their extra-biblical ideological obsession -- namely, "God didn't intend the death of animals".

Click to expand...

How about the death of plants?

Assyrian said:

You quote other examples of animals having the wrong utensils for their diet as evidence God provided the right utensils for Saber Toothed Tigers after the fall?

Click to expand...

I am not so convinced that sharp teeth are "evolved" to eat meat. What does the very first animal tooth (fish?) look like? We don't have sharp teeth, but we eat meat. Our teeth have not become any sharper in human evolution. Why do our teeth become more blunt than those of ape's? What's wrong to have sharp teeth to eat veges? would that give any evolutional disadvantages?

Did the huge saber tooth overshoot in the evolution process? Why don't we see any more of it in current animals? I don't see any evolutional pressure to suppress it. How do we know that the saber tooth did not function like the tusk of elephant?

Basically, use the shape of tooth to determine the diet of animal is only a speculation, not a proof, and not a good argument to discredit any word in the Bible.

Ahhh teeth. A favourite subject of mine.
Jig's right. Many frugivores (fruit eaters) have conical canine teeth. They're useful for puncturing and holding fruit, but that's about it. They're not used in food processing.
In mammals, the food processing is done at the back of the mouth, by the molars. Fruit and seed eaters tend to have blunt, rounded cusps used for crushing food items, much like a mortar and pestle.
Grass and leaf eaters, on the other hand, tend to have sharp cusps used to shear past one another, since shearing is the best way to process tough, fibrous plant matter.
Snakes, however, have molars of no kind. They have blade-like (zyphodont) teeth that did not even come into occlusion. They were useful only for slicing through meat. There is just no way a skull like this could be used to process plant matter (the extreme kinesis of the snake skull is also terribly designed for plant mastication because it provides no resistance for pulping):

So as a YEC, you have to either admit that God did a poor job of designing the snake as a plant eater (or any other zyphodont animal, for that matter), or that all these animals underwent radical evolution post-Fall to adapt to their new carnivorous lifestyle. Either way, it's just ad hoc arm waving.

juvenissun said:

Basically, use the shape of tooth to determine the diet of animal is only a speculation, not a proof, and not a good argument to discredit any word in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Indeed --- note this scenario when we revert back to a time when there will be no more death.

Isaiah 11:7 said:

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Click to expand...