Meat eaters and the worldwide flood myth

abraham · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 06:33 PM troodon said this in Post #38

What about Great White sharks or Killar Whales? I bet you a Great White doesn't have a sufficiently large digestive tract to digest nothing but plant matter.

Ummm, what does that have to do with a vegetarian lion? *confused*

troodon · Apr 7, 2003

Ummm, what does that have to do with a vegetarian lion? *confused*

Let me see... the post I was responding to was, in itself, a response to Frumious' post in which, while lions were not mentioned, great white sharks and orcas were. I'm not saying the existance of a lion that was fed nothing but prepared plant matter isn't exciting and all, but it doesn't address the types of animals Frumious brought up and how they would survive in the wild without humans feeding them dietary supplements. Understand now?

abraham · Apr 7, 2003

They could not survive without human help? Huh?

abraham · Apr 7, 2003

Orcas would likely get their dietary supplements from the same place blue whales would get theirs...

Freodin · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 12:52 AM abraham said this in Post #44

Orcas would likely get their dietary supplements from the same place blue whales would get theirs...

You mean by filtering krill (which are animals) through their balean plates (which orcas don´t have)?

troodon · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 03:52 PM abraham said this in Post #44

Orcas would likely get their dietary supplements from the same place blue whales would get theirs...

A-huh. So Krill isn't an animal because...

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 7, 2003

Yesterday at 11:25 PM abraham said this in Post #37

Frum;

are you familiar with the lion in the 1970's who was a vegetarian its whole life? It refused to eat meat, or any food that had blood in it, no matter how hard people tried to coax it.

Yes, I am familiar with the story of Little Tyke. I also know a bit about cat nutrition. Little Tyke was able to survive, if not prosper until she died from pneumonia,  at least in part because she was feed a diet that included eggs. This was necessary because eggs are a source of taurine which cats can't live without.  In the wild an animal that eats eggs is not considered a vegetarian.

Here is little information on cat nutrition.

http://www.csew.com/felidtag/pages/Reports/husbandry_manual_ch_3.htm

"Taurine deficiency leads to central retinal degeneration and (Taurine) is apparently crucial in preventing acute cardiomyopathy. It has been discovered recently that a commercial canned cat food induced taurine deficiency in leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis)...

In the wild, felids rarely encounter much carbohydrate in animal prey. Thus, it is not surprising that the domestic cat lacks a hepatic glycolytic enzyme (glucokinase) that is present in the dog and in omnivores such as the laboratory mouse and rat. Although the cat can digest and utilize soluble carbohydrate by other pathways, this species derives most blood glucose from specific amino acids via gluconeogenic pathways...

The felid also requires pre-formed vitamin A in its diet because it cannot convert the plant precursors (carotenoids such as beta carotene) to retinol. Vitamin A requirements may be satisfied by consumption of whole prey, including viscera. A dietary source of niacin also is essential. In other mammalian species that have been studied, metabolic conversion of the amino acid tryptophan to niacin can at least partially satisfy the niacin requirement, but in the felid this conversion does not occur. This is of little consequence in the wild because whole prey is a rich niacin source.
Another unusual characteristic of the felid is that essential fatty acid requirements cannot be met solely from linoleic and/or linolenic acids, as in most mammals studied. In addition, cats require a long-chain fatty acid, arachidonic acid, which is available only from animal sources. This requirement appears to stem from low activity of hepatic desaturase enzymes required to convert linoleic to arachidonic acid.

  
 
The Frumious Bandersnatch

look · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 05:55 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #35

OK, let's get back the original subject which I quote above from my first post on the thread.  It seems that Freedom777 thinks carnivoruos behavior began at the fall. I have heard that one from YECs and also the position, put forth here by Look, that there were no carnivores of any kind until after the flood. You YECs are absolutely sure that you know exactly what the Bible is telling you but it seems to be telling you different things. FoC seems unwilling to tell use exactly what the Bible tells him on this subject. 

So Look, start by explaining why God gave carnivores all those teeth and claws if he wasn't going to let them eat meat until after the flood and then try to answer the other questions above if you can. 

Doesn't the image of great white sharks and killer whales living on seaweed before the flood seem at least a little strange to you? I think it's absurd in the extreme.  

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Frummy, it's really quite simple. If you use the old noggin, you could imagine the monkey taking a few steps and as he progresses along on the evolutionary path, till he becomes the humpback of Notre Dame, till VIOLA, he becomes a man! Easy, wasn't it?

Now visualize this!

God is finished, now we are looking at the world as He left it. The planet's ecosphere is perfect, there is enough oxygen for the dinos (God's lawnmowers), the crystalline firmament is functioning properly (filtering out the short u.v. rays and passing through the beneficial light), the water is pure and it's the same temperature all over the globe plus or minus a few degrees. There is an abundant and copious amounts of green vegetation (food) for everybody (bugs, animals and humans).

Now for the kicker! Are you ready??? The present day animals and fishies and yes, even the humans, are not in their original state as created. In the pre-flood days, the creation was perfectly orchestrated and in symphony with God. The animal kingdom was perfectly created as vegetarian lifeforms with no need for claws or other equipment for hunting prey. It was only after the flood, after their paradise was destroyed, that they had to be equiped to hunt for live, moving prey. Before, when they were vegetarians, they had no need for the tools needed to be carnivores. After their ecosystem was destroyed, they had to adapt (Become adapted) for the more hostile enviroment.

This, of course, makes no mention of the part God had to play in changing their physiology.

Whee! Now wasn't that fun... :clap:

Arikay · Apr 7, 2003

So god made a perfect world and adam and eve and satan were able to destroy it without god being able to do anything about it, making adam, eve, and satan more powerfull than god.

Hmmm...

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 7, 2003

"Before, when they were vegetarians, they had no need for the tools needed to be carnivores. After their ecosystem was destroyed, they had to adapt (Become adapted) for the more hostile enviroment.

This, of course, makes no mention of the part God had to play in changing their physiology. "

Except that you have all those allegedly flood deposited fossils that indicate that the animals were carnivores and had those tools you say they didn't need.  Velociraptor fossils don't look much like they came from vegetarians. There is lots of evidence of carnivorous behavior in the fossil record including bones with teeth marks. I have even seen a picture of a fossil of a fish that had eaten another fish. Dinosaur coprolites (fossil feces) have been found containing the bones of the animals they had eaten.

http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/Dinocopro.htm

The Frumious Bandersnatch

look · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 08:27 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #50 Except that you have all those allegedly flood deposited fossils that indicate that the animals were carnivores and had those tools you say they didn't need.  Velociraptor fossils don't look much like they came from vegetarians. There is lots of evidence of carnivorous behavior in the fossil record including bones with teeth marks. I have even seen a picture of a fossil of a fish that had eaten another fish. Dinosaur coprolites (fossil feces) have been found containing the bones of the animals they had eaten.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/Dinocopro.htm
The Frumious Bandersnatch

Frum, I appreciate your effort in showing me these things, along with the links. I try to have an open mind when discussing matters such as these. One reason for that is, when someone shows me in an academic way, a possibility or a reasonable hypothesis, I tend to look at it from their viewpoint so I can understand the actual statement made.

I took this opportunity to visualize what circumstances had to occur, for us to find these fossils in their present form and orientation. I have come, with much thought, to form a conclusion to the evidence you have presented.

The first point you have made, was concerning the fact they have these tools that seem fitted for a carnivore. I thought about that, a seeming contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Then it hit me. Even today, we have animals that have these "carnivorous" tools, but they don't use it in that manner. The claws could be used for digging up the soil, stripping dead wood, and the like.One of these animals we have is the armadillo. Although it is an insectivore, the claws are ideally suited for burrowing. the mole has claws with which to dig with. So with that in mind, I can see, in keeping with the record in Genesis, why the dinosaurs had these "implements". They were used for the purpose of turning over soil, possibly stripping tree bark and eating the actual trunks. Nothing goes to waste!

As for the teeth, I saw how it would become useful for eating trees (I realize this sounds ridiculous). Given those teeth (I looked at a website with teeth from many dinosaurs), I saw that the teeth would be well suited for tough wood as well. The article is found here.

The velociraptor has a sickle shaped sharp claw in the middle of each foot. I saw that this could have been used for the purpose of climbing trees. It reminded me of the strap-on jigs the tree surgeons use (telephone pole workers also).

As for the bones with "teeth marks", while it does seem to be from carnivore teeth marks, the marks may have been caused from acidic sediment. The marks also could have been caused from sharp objects that were undoubtedly thrown around by the swirling waters of the flood. These dinosaurs had to have been swirled around, like clothes in a washing machine, in this catastrophic flood.

Have you considered that the fish "eating" a fish when it got fossilized, could be a simple case one on top of another? Or perhaps both were dead and in what must have been a swirling malestrom, one got "stuck" in the other's mouth?

Coprolites, by their nature, are kinda fluid. Most of them are no bigger than a nickel. However, if it was fossilized, then it would be impossible to determine the contents due to the fact the organic molecules were swapped for silica based molecules. If it was not fossilized, then it would be possible to "dissect" the coporlite for checking the contents. I can see how a dinosaur could have died and fell on top of the excrement and decayed with the bones settling into it. But, my question is, "Based on it's fluid nature, how could it fossilize, instead of merely dissolving into the water?" Has any "human" coporlites ever been found? I really would like to see a report of dinosaurs with it's gut intact and analyzed for contents, as the wooly mammoths were done.

I must confess that really, I'm not a "yec" or an "oec", It seems that God created the heavens and the earth a very long time ago. In Genesis, there seems to be a untold span of time between verse 1 and verse 2. My guess is that the earth could be millions of years old. I did some hebrew word studies and found three accounts of Satan having an actual kingdom of which earth was a part of. That kingdom was brought to judgement when Satan fell and the surface of the earth was destroyed. Verse 2, in my thinking, was when God restored the earth, or more specifically, remade the earth and if you will, restocked it with new lifeforms. God did tell Adam to "replenish" the earth. Why would He say that, unless the earth had been "plenished"?

It may be that the dinosaurs were from that earlier kingdom when Satan was given a kingdom (a small one). This is really another topic, but it is all interelated, imho.

I hope you will consider the alternatives I have pointed from the same evidence we have looked at. I understand your viewpoint, and without the Bible record, it appears plausible. I, however, think there is more to it than meets the eye.

look · Apr 8, 2003

Yesterday at 08:24 PM Arikay said this in Post #49 So god made a perfect world and adam and eve and satan were able to destroy it without god being able to do anything about it, making adam, eve, and satan more powerfull than god.Hmmm...

Arikay, why did you actually think Adam, Eve and Satan were the ones who destroyed the pre-flood ecosystem? Where did you possibly get that from?

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man.

I see that you are still looking for a belt to keep your pants up, eh Arikay?

Cantuar · Apr 8, 2003

So you're saying that the exact same things that are adaptations to carnivory these days were not adaptations to carnivory back then? If your only basis for saying that is the Bible, then why even bother to try and present scientific scenarios? Why not just say "it's that way because the Bible says so" and leave it at that? I mean, the notion that one fish arrived in the stomach of another fish by accident and that claws weren't used for catching prey back then and that things that look exactly like tooth marks really aren't tooth marks after all etc etc does seem to be stretching credulity.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 01:06 AM look said this in Post #51

As for the bones with "teeth marks", while it does seem to be from carnivore teeth marks, the marks may have been caused from acidic sediment.

Sediment itself is not acidic. Some minerals can cause a fluid's acidity to increase when dissolved, however. That is to say, sediments aren't abrasive because of some sort of acidic quality.

The marks also could have been caused from sharp objects that were undoubtedly thrown around by the swirling waters of the flood.

This rests upon the unsubstantiated assumption that a global flood happened when there is, in fact, evidence that no such event happened, and furthermore, that no such event could happen in the first place.

These dinosaurs had to have been swirled around, like clothes in a washing machine, in this catastrophic flood.

...and yet their fossilized remains occur only in a proportion of the geologic record, not mixed in with other remains.

Your post relies on unsubstantiated assumptions including the above comments on sharp objects floating around during a flooding event that never could have happened in the first place.

Arikay · Apr 8, 2003

So you mean to tell me that god created the perfect world and then purposly destroyed it himself, possibly because he was angery?

Wow, and I thought satan wanted to destroy gods work, I didnt know god did too.

Today at 10:13 PM look said this in Post #52

Arikay, why did you actually think Adam, Eve and Satan were the ones who destroyed the pre-flood ecosystem? Where did you possibly get that from?

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man.

I see that you are still looking for a belt to keep your pants up, eh Arikay?

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 01:13 AM look said this in Post #52

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man. 

And there goes omni-benevelence right out the window...not to mention omnipotence seeing as though an omniscient god would have known before creation that his creations would be a failures he would have to destroy out of wrath and unforgiveness in the first place.

...but that's a topic for something like apologetics. This is the science forum. Flood proponents, however, do not typically result to science once they realize it falsifies their position.

Arikay · Apr 8, 2003

This is why literal creationists are dangerous to christianity, because, ironically, while trying to prove the flood is true, he is turning god into a rather mean person, and by doing that, he is possibly turning people Away from christianity.

Anyway, back to meat eaters.

look · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 01:41 AM Cantuar said this in Post #53 So you're saying that the exact same things that are adaptations to carnivory (sic) these days were not adaptations to carnivory (sic) back then?

For the mentally challenged, yes.

If your only basis for saying that is the Bible, then why even bother to try and present scientific scenarios? Why not just say "it's that way because the Bible says so" and leave it at that?

Well, at least we have a Book with links to a higher intelligence to use in our formulation of the scientific hypothesis of the pre-flood ecosystem.

I mean, the notion that one fish arrived in the stomach of another fish by accident and that claws weren't used for catching prey back then and that things that look exactly like tooth marks really aren't tooth marks after all etc etc does seem to be stretching credulity.

I have to wonder whose "credulity" is at stake here? You sound as if you know better, because you were there. As I have noted previously, we have the advantage of possessing a Book from a Higher Intelligence, while all you can do is come up with a "Oh, please let it be anything but God!" mentality. Nope, your views are the hypothesis' that stretches "credulity" here.

look · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 01:45 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #54 Sediment itself is not acidic. Some minerals can cause a fluid's acidity to increase when dissolved, however. That is to say, sediments aren't abrasive because of some sort of acidic quality.

Are you tring to tell me that sediment has no Ph value? Oh please! What's acidity got to do with sandpaperlike qualities?

This rests upon the unsubstantiated assumption that a global flood happened when there is, in fact, evidence that no such event happened, and furthermore, that no such event could happen in the first place.

Click to expand...

Oh I wouldn't say that it's an unsubstantiated assumption, I have a question for you. What are "polystrate" fossils and how would that contradict your hypothesis? My guess is that you would not even attempt to find out what a "polystrate" fossil is. Hint: they are found in sedimentary layers... I notice that no one has disputed my rejection of the widely held presupposition of coal taking a long time to form.

...and yet their fossilized remains occur only in a proportion of the geologic record, not mixed in with other remains.

Click to expand...

But of course that would have to be the case. Heavier objects tend to settle first. Duh!

Your post relies on unsubstantiated assumptions including the above comments on sharp objects floating around during a flooding event that never could have happened in the first place.

Click to expand...

Is there any proof that indeed did not happen? After all, any metal that was thrown around in the malestrom would have been converted to oxides in 4,000 years, would 'cha think? *gotta break it to him slowly...*

look · Apr 8, 2003

Today at 01:45 AM Arikay said this in Post #55 So you mean to tell me that god created the perfect world and then purposly(sic) destroyed it himself, possibly because he was angery(sic)?

Wow, and I thought satan wanted to destroy gods work, I didnt know god did too.

Today at 1:49 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #56 And there goes omni-benevelence right out the window...not to mention omnipotence seeing as though an omniscient god would have known before creation that his creations would be a failures he would have to destroy out of wrath and unforgiveness in the first place. ...but that's a topic for something like apologetics. This is the science forum. Flood proponents, however, do not typically result(sic) to science once they realize it falsifies their position.

Today at 01:55 AM Arikay said this in Post#57
This is why literal creationists are dangerous to christianity, because, ironically, while trying to prove the flood is true, he is turning god into a rather mean person, and by doing that, he is possibly turning people Away from christianity.

See, God cannot remain Just and Holy without judging sin. He, by His nature, must and WILL judge all mankind for willfully turning away from His statutes. He has a lot of longsuffering and patience, not willing that any should perish from sin. God is Just. He sent His own Son to pay for our sins (which we didn't deserve) and pardoned all of us. God has pardoned us!!! Did you get that? We've been pardoned! The only problem is, each of us has to take the pardon while still in our bodies, or we can't use it.

The very fact that God had Jesus pay for our pardon is very sufficent evidence for showing He doesn't want any of us to perish. For anybody to say that God is a "meanie" is "way out there" and is showing very substantial ignorance. That is not very smart.

This is why the Christians (well, partly) contest evolution, because it can be shown that God made all of this. If that can be shown, then it would become obvious that God wants to save us.

If creation can be shown to be valid, then man is forced in a stronger way to be honest with himself in the reality of God. You can take it or leave it. He will not force His ways on anybody. However, He will not allow spiritual "outlaws" to go free in His creation, this is why dead sinners are incarcerated in hell to wait for the big court day with Him as the Judge.

To say that God is a "meanie" is pure spin, trying to twist the facts to look like something else.

Meat eaters and the worldwide flood myth

Active Member

Be wise and be smart

Active Member

Active Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Be wise and be smart

Contributor

A New Species of Man®

HI

Contributor

A New Species of Man®

A New Species of Man®

Forever England

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

A New Species of Man®

A New Species of Man®

A New Species of Man®

Similar threads