The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[musicluvr83]

which also means that the jaws from the Megalodon were also post-Fall. I think the problem here lies with folks using the post-fallen world as the standard for how the pre-fallen world was in certain aspects. so yes, every meat eating nasty thing that has ever ran, flew, or swam on this earth was very different before sin and death were introduced to the cosmos.

Very true!

 

[Dorothea]

well, I think we have to remember that the dinos before the Fall were just that, unfallen and glorified dinosaurs (I know that sounds kinda dumb, but I am gonna run with it). which means, that like man, they all were vegetarian as well. as silly as this might sound to some folks, the fangs and claws and all that stuff that a T-rex had could have been an affect of the Fall as well, to help it deal with the new fallen universe in which it lived.

if anyone wants Patristic quotes about Creation, just find the last Theistic Evolution thread. there were a ton thrown in there about young earth Creation.

and don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that anyone who believes in evolution is dumb or anything like that, I just personally don't.

Ok, I can understand that, Matt. But there's one part that I have a question...well two actually So, the dinos fell with the rest of creation - because of Adam and Eve, of course....so if they fell along with all the other animals and Adam and Eve, where were they in proximity of Adam and Eve and their offspring? How did the humans survive with big dinos running around eating flesh of animals and probably humans if we follow this sharp teeth and claws and omnivore theory. When did the dinos disappear while the other animals lived and the people as well??

 

[MKJ]

im just as inclined to ask why i should think such things stayed the same for billions of year when change is such a huge part of our world. im also inclined to question uniformitarianism because it leads to conclusions that are not in harmony with our Tradition, and it since uniformitarianism is just an assumption and not a provable fact, i have no problem at all dismissing it. for the Fathers, the fall was a cosmic event with huge effects on our world. but when looking at a huge sudden change through uniformitarian lenses you will think youre seeing a long period of time because the change is so massive. for me, there's just way too many unanswerable questions that come along with modern scientific theories, whereas the teachings of the Fathers answer them quite nicely.

Something to think about is that rejecting uniformism does not just destroy science - and that includes modern science, like the kind that says your plane will stay in the air. It also destroys all philosophy and theology. It destroys the whole possibility of human knowledge, including knowledge of the world, of ourselves, and of God. That is the reason people do not want to reject it as a principle - it leads directly to living in a barrel with Diogenes the Cynic.

Of course most people who claim to reject uniformism do not follow Diogenes example, because they do not really believe it. They use it to reject what they object to, but not what they like.

I'm curious though - do you also feel Athanasius is beyond the pale? He clearly rejects the idea that animals were immortal before the Fall, and in fact says that humans are by nature mortal before the Fall.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ok, I am unsubscribing now. There is no way I am going to believe that the mouth of a T-Rex is designed to eat plant matter. Next thing I know it I will be told that megladon was a plant eater as well.

This goes back to the "kind" issue. T-Rex was but one of many varieties of dinosaur, which is but one of many varities of reptiles. Nobody is denying adaptation and change within such families. What is unreasonable about a particular variety of reptile adapting to a particular "post-fall" environment such that those who were carnivorous survived?

That is, nobody said that whatever "dinosaur" (if such a distinction needs to be made...perhaps "reptile kind") existed at creation had the meet-eating teeth and jaws of a T-Rex, and therefore nobody will adk you to believe that a T-Rex ate plant matter.

However there were many herbivorous dinosaurs and today there are herbivorous and omnivorous reptiles.

By insisting that we who disagree, are holding to a simple-headed theory, it's very easy to refute with a sweep of the arm. But nobody is positing anything that simple.

Now is a few hundred or few thousand years enough for a generic reptile to adapt into a flesh-eating monster? I don't know. There still are many things that seem awfully difficult to fit into a 6,000 year old universe. Which is why I'm perfectly OK with saying I have no idea how old the universe is, except that it started sometime prior to 1978 which is all I can vouch for. It really doesn't affect my daily life much.

 

[Ignatius21]

Something to think about is that rejecting uniformism does not just destroy science - and that includes modern science, like the kind that says your plane will stay in the air. It also destroys all philosophy and theology. It destroys the whole possibility of human knowledge, including knowledge of the world, of ourselves, and of God. That is the reason people do not want to reject it as a principle - it leads directly to living in a barrel with Diogenes the Cynic.

Of course most people who claim to reject uniformism do not follow Diogenes example, because they do not really believe it. They use it to reject what they object to, but not what they like.

I'm curious though - do you also feel Athanasius is beyond the pale? He clearly rejects the idea that animals were immortal before the Fall, and in fact says that humans are by nature mortal before the Fall.

You raise good points. Pratically speaking we certainly don't expect gravity to reverse itself tomorrow, or things to just start decaying faster, or the like. But then I think you may be painting "rejection of uniformism" with too broad a brush here, in that it isn't saying that "nothing is uniform and we can't rely on laws of nature," but rather "we can't simply assume that all things have always looked, and acted, and worked exactly as they appear to do today."

From at least the time of the flood, death has been the norm for the world. All of it. Even things we don't consider "living" still die. Yet "widows received back their dead." Those were acts in which the uniform laws of nature and philosophy were evidently suspended or superceded. People I've talked to who either (a) reject Christianity entirely or (b) are so liberal they take "resurrection" to mean "his teachings live on through us today" simply confess they can't accept the resurrection. Period. Bodies don't get back up from the dead, do they? Ever seen one? They haven't, therefore it must never have happened before.

None of this is to say that things aren't uniform from the beginning of time. Perhaps the universe is a trillion years old, I have no idea. It's to say that no matter how much we can discuss carbon dates, decay rates, fossil records or the like, the discussion always circles back to what's more reasonable to assume. The issue ultimately is one of philosophy and not of science. Once the philosophical groundwork is laid, the rest can follow but can never transgress the framework within which the data is interpreted.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ok, I can understand that, Matt. But there's one part that I have a question...well two actually So, the dinos fell with the rest of creation - because of Adam and Eve, of course....so if they fell along with all the other animals and Adam and Eve, where were they in proximity of Adam and Eve and their offspring? How did the humans survive with big dinos running around eating flesh of animals and probably humans if we follow this sharp teeth and claws and omnivore theory. When did the dinos disappear while the other animals lived and the people as well??

Dunno...probably the same way they survived with big tigers, lions, wolves, and all kinds of other deadly flesh-eating creatures running around. And certainly not all of them survived

 

[jckstraw72]

Something to think about is that rejecting uniformism does not just destroy science - and that includes modern science, like the kind that says your plane will stay in the air. It also destroys all philosophy and theology. It destroys the whole possibility of human knowledge, including knowledge of the world, of ourselves, and of God. That is the reason people do not want to reject it as a principle - it leads directly to living in a barrel with Diogenes the Cynic.

Of course most people who claim to reject uniformism do not follow Diogenes example, because they do not really believe it. They use it to reject what they object to, but not what they like.

I'm curious though - do you also feel Athanasius is beyond the pale? He clearly rejects the idea that animals were immortal before the Fall, and in fact says that humans are by nature mortal before the Fall.

well someone on another forum brought up St. Athanasius too, but he never really produced any quotes that demonstrated that St. Athanasius believed in death before the fall, rather than that he was simply looking at the question from another point of view. i think St. Athanasius talks about change being part of human nature because we changed from non-existence to existence, not necessarily because we are naturally corrupt. we have been talking about this in my Cosmology course at seminary - change is naturally part of creation just by virtue of coming into existence ex nihilo.

St. Athanasius says:

[FONT="]On the Incarnation [/FONT][FONT="]7[/FONT]
[FONT="]4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought? 5. For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father.[/FONT]

so although he seems to say that corruption is part of our nature, he says we only enter into it through our sin. i think he is viewing it as we are not immortal by nature, but rather by the sustaining grace of God, which we walked away from by sinning. but either way, man did not die in the Garden until sin. Furthermore, he says that the Word is to bring us once more to incorruption.

furthermore, [FONT=&quot]Fr. Andrew Louth says that St. Athanasius sees the fall as cosmic in Maximus the Confessor, pg. 64: “ Even St. Athanasius, a Christian thinker of relatively unsophisticated philosophical culture, interprets the Fall in terms of corruption and death, seen as affecting the whole cosmic order.”[/FONT]

 

[MKJ]

well someone on another forum brought up St. Athanasius too, but he never really produced any quotes that demonstrated that St. Athanasius believed in death before the fall, rather than that he was simply looking at the question from another point of view. i think St. Athanasius talks about change being part of human nature because we changed from non-existence to existence, not necessarily because we are naturally corrupt. we have been talking about this in my Cosmology course at seminary - change is naturally part of creation just by virtue of coming into existence ex nihilo.

St. Athanasius says:


so although he seems to say that corruption is part of our nature, he says we only enter into it through our sin. i think he is viewing it as we are not immortal by nature, but rather by the sustaining grace of God, which we walked away from by sinning. but either way, man did not die in the Garden until sin. Furthermore, he says that the Word is to bring us once more to incorruption.

furthermore, [FONT=&quot]Fr. Andrew Louth says that St. Athanasius sees the fall as cosmic in Maximus the Confessor, pg. 64: “ Even St. Athanasius, a Christian thinker of relatively unsophisticated philosophical culture, interprets the Fall in terms of corruption and death, seen as affecting the whole cosmic order.”[/FONT]

I am rather flabbergasted that you would make this argument. Although I haven't combed through On the Incarnation looking for proof-texts, it clearly says that only humans have immortality - not incorruptibly - before the Fall. I don't think you would have any trouble coming up with some quotes to that effect if you looked. Further, if you try to understand the argument it is making on that point, it is clear that animals could not possess immortality, even before the Fall - it is part of what makes us humans instead of animals. He discusses it at some length.

And of course one of the important things about On the Incarnation is that Athanasius is not presenting some arguments of his own. He is presenting to another the teachings of the Church as he has received them, not something controversial, new, or faddish.

 

[Dorothea]

I am rather flabbergasted that you would make this argument. Although I haven't combed through On the Incarnation looking for proof-texts, it clearly says that only humans have immortality - not incorruptibly - before the Fall. I don't think you would have any trouble coming up with some quotes to that effect if you looked. Further, if you try to understand the argument it is making on that point, it is clear that animals could not possess immortality, even before the Fall - it is part of what makes us humans instead of animals. He discusses it at some length.

And of course one of the important things about On the Incarnation is that Athanasius is not presenting some arguments of his own. He is presenting to another the teachings of the Church as he has received them, not something controversial, new, or faddish.

These are very good points.

 

[jckstraw72]

I am rather flabbergasted that you would make this argument. Although I haven't combed through On the Incarnation looking for proof-texts, it clearly says that only humans have immortality - not incorruptibly - before the Fall. I don't think you would have any trouble coming up with some quotes to that effect if you looked. Further, if you try to understand the argument it is making on that point, it is clear that animals could not possess immortality, even before the Fall - it is part of what makes us humans instead of animals. He discusses it at some length.

And of course one of the important things about On the Incarnation is that Athanasius is not presenting some arguments of his own. He is presenting to another the teachings of the Church as he has received them, not something controversial, new, or faddish.

well i havent read On the Incarnation in full and in-depth so i was just going off of what i have seen. i was more referring to human immortality before the Fall with that quote, because in your post that i was responding to you said he even says that humans are mortal before the Fall. i would have to look more into it specifically on the issue of animals, although Fr. Louth says that the Fall was indeed a cosmic event according to St. Athanasius, so I'm not alone in my understanding. but if you could provide references or quotes from where he specifically talks about animals that would be helpful. and i dont understand the distinction youre making between immortality and incorruptibility. we originally didnt die because there was no corruption of life.

also, without reading it first, i would say that its possible that animals are mortal by nature, yet are sustained alive by the presence and grace of God in creation before man's sin. so the distinction is that the life is not in and of themselves, but yet it is something they possess as the gift of God.

the other Fathers are also presenting what they have learned and not just offering opinions, and Fathers both before and after St. Athanasius tell us that animals only die because man sinned, so i think either St. Athanasius is being mis-interpreted (not saying he is, just that its a possibility), or that he is simply wrong on this matter, based on the witness of so many other Fathers.

 

[jckstraw72]

also, i mean, it just brings up practical questions - how Paradise-y is it when you have your beloved pet Fido's rotting carcass next to you? were they saddened over the loss of animals? does sadness belong in Paradise?

 

[MKJ]

well i havent read On the Incarnation in full and in-depth so i was just going off of what i have seen. i was more referring to human immortality before the Fall with that quote, because in your post that i was responding to you said he even says that humans are mortal before the Fall. i would have to look more into it specifically on the issue of animals, although Fr. Louth says that the Fall was indeed a cosmic event according to St. Athanasius, so I'm not alone in my understanding. but if you could provide references or quotes from where he specifically talks about animals that would be helpful. and i dont understand the distinction youre making between immortality and incorruptibility. we originally didnt die because there was no corruption of life.

also, without reading it first, i would say that its possible that animals are mortal by nature, yet are sustained alive by the presence and grace of God in creation before man's sin. so the distinction is that the life is not in and of themselves, but yet it is something they possess as the gift of God.

the other Fathers are also presenting what they have learned and not just offering opinions, and Fathers both before and after St. Athanasius tell us that animals only die because man sinned, so i think either St. Athanasius is being mis-interpreted (not saying he is, just that its a possibility), or that he is simply wrong on this matter, based on the witness of so many other Fathers.

Well, many Fathers are actually giving their own thoughts and opinions, or making their own arguments. Not all are simply teaching what they have been taught. That's what theologians do.

I can give you some quotes later on tonight once the kids are in bed. But yes, Athanasius is arguing that according to our own nature, as being created from nothing, we suffer corruption and death (corruption is just a matter of being on one's way to death.) It is because through Grace we have God's image in us that we were preserved from death before the Fall. This is not true of animals though - they are not made in God's image and so suffer from corruption and death even before the Fall.

Have you considered though that the Fathers may not have been unanimous on this issue? You often seem to assume that they must have all agreed on such things, but that isn't necessarily the case. Some Fathers seem to have thought that there would have been animal and plant death before the Fall. Others do not. The text itself is unclear. The Church doesn't have a definitive position on this question.

Also, not all of the Fathers consider that time passed at all before the Fall, or that the history of creation started before the Fall. That is, that the Fall may have occurred and then the history of the universe happened, all under the influence of the Fall.

There are all kinds of opinions on these questions that are well within what the Church has always considered possible and orthodox. Trying to paint it as if there was only one viewpoint is simply inaccurate.

 

[MKJ]

also, i mean, it just brings up practical questions - how Paradise-y is it when you have your beloved pet Fido's rotting carcass next to you? were they saddened over the loss of animals? does sadness belong in Paradise?

Well, in Heaven will you be sad to find that your child isn't there with you, if that is the case? Are we as Christians meant to be sad when someone who is a saint dies? Are all kinds of sadness even bad? And what's wrong with rotting stuff anyway - it's great for growing vegetables in once is gets rotten enough.

 

[nutroll]

also, i mean, it just brings up practical questions - how Paradise-y is it when you have your beloved pet Fido's rotting carcass next to you? were they saddened over the loss of animals? does sadness belong in Paradise?

It seems to me that if we didn't anthropomorphize animals the way we so often do, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Does the hunter cry when he kills his prey? Is the farmer sad when his livestock is slaughtered? What about the Israelites when they brought animals to be sacrificed? On the other hand, we raise animals to be our companions and friends. Even the way you phrased your question is telling. You didn't ask if Adam would have been saddened over the death of a mouse eaten by an owl, you asked if he would be saddened by Fido's rotting carcass. We keep pets, we name them, we care for them and rely on them for friendship and love. Is this how things are meant to be, or is this itself a distortion that comes with the Fall? We are told in Genesis that God made woman because none of the animals were suitable companions for man. The first we hear of man keeping domesticated animals is Abel and he offers sacrifice out of his flock.

 

[Kristos]

it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if they didn't feel something...

i feel a sort of remorse every time I kill an animal to eat it.

 

[Ignatius21]

it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if they didn't feel something...

i feel a sort of remorse every time I kill an animal to eat it.

Have you considered joining P.E.T.A.? (that's People for the Eating of Tasty Animals).

 

[nutroll]

I don't think that it is sadness that makes it a sacrifice. When you give the best of all your livestock, you are giving of your own livelihood. It is something that could feed you and your family.

 

[Photini]

It seems to me that if we didn't anthropomorphize animals the way we so often do, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Does the hunter cry when he kills his prey? Is the farmer sad when his livestock is slaughtered? What about the Israelites when they brought animals to be sacrificed? On the other hand, we raise animals to be our companions and friends. Even the way you phrased your question is telling. You didn't ask if Adam would have been saddened over the death of a mouse eaten by an owl, you asked if he would be saddened by Fido's rotting carcass. We keep pets, we name them, we care for them and rely on them for friendship and love. Is this how things are meant to be, or is this itself a distortion that comes with the Fall? We are told in Genesis that God made woman because none of the animals were suitable companions for man. The first we hear of man keeping domesticated animals is Abel and he offers sacrifice out of his flock.

St Silouan the Athonite said something to this effect too. I recall reading it in a book about him.. that attachment to animals debases the human and also serves as an obstacle to theosis. (Attachment being the key word here..)

and PS, I have two cats.

 

[Quid]

There is a lot of evidence for evolution, evidence discovered by Christians. In some cases Orthodox Christians. Tons of peer-review documents, still able to be reviewed further if a skeptic feel need and I have yet to find something to rock the foundation of natural selection. So, I subscribe to the theory. However, if it is proven wrong tomorrow I dont care.

Nor do I care that there are issues with lining it up with scripture. We just are not going to be able to reconcile everything in science or religion.

 

[jckstraw72]

Nor do I care that there are issues with lining it up with scripture. We just are not going to be able to reconcile everything in science or religion.

i admire your honesty here at least!