Posted on 02/20/2009 8:19:51 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals
by Robert J. M. Gurney
All evolutionists and virtually all old-earth creationists believe that animals were killing and eating one another for millions of years, long before the Fall of man. Young-earth creationists argue that this is incompatible with Scripture. Old-earthers dispute the young-earthers’ interpretation of Scripture and employ at least two other counterarguments. One is that carnivorous behaviour is actually very good, and the other is that animals in the wild do not suffer. There is very good reason to believe that they do suffer; but even if they do not, carnivorous activity before the Fall remains incompatible with Scripture...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Ping!
This is my biggest bugaboo with those that state that
evolution is compatible with creation.
The first thing that God observed wasn’t “good” was that Man was alone.
Mutation, disease, death & predation amongst His other creations is “good”?
Genesis also specifically states that plants were the food for every creature.
Young earthers and old earthers arguing the equivelant of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With about the same relevance.
Ahh - so T. Rexes ate salads before the Fall of Man. Those dagger-teeth were just for show. Then they started eating critters until they were drowned in the Flood.
Gotcha.
The thing about eating veggies changes in Genesis. Prior to the flood there appeared to be some sort of an antediluvian peace during which everybody ate veggies. After the flood God tells Noah and his descendants that they can kill and eat animals. That would also correspond with the end of man’s ability to communicate with the other animals.
Midrashim describes a handful of leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood. But that’s all they were; the true main age of dinosaurs would have been a few thousand or tens of thousands of years back. In particular there is no way humans could ever have lived around raptors without automatic weapons.
Yet, He was the one who put man there by himself.
DIRTBOY!!!
Don’t cloud fantasy with LOGIC and FACTS!!!! It will get you FLAMED!!!
Using the Bible to interpret biological evolution is like using a law book to perform brain surgery. Neither one has anything to do with the other.
I’ve posed this question to the folks at AIG, and they said there was no definitive answer as to whether animals preyed on each other between the Fall and post-Flood.
Genesis specifically states that Man can now eat meat after the Flood (and not before), and that (to make it fair, I suppose), animals would now fear Man.
Geez, every dummy knows that! It's 72, isn't it? Or am I confusing that with something else?????
Maybe the T. Rexes ate Spam. That isn’t really meat, after all.
“Consider all this; and then turn to this green, gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange analogy to something in yourself? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but encompassed by all the horrors of the half known life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return!”
Nature is a bloodbath. Those who have never pushed off from that insular Tahiti are peaceful and joyful in the ignorance of this. Those who have can never return.
Depends on the definition of angel. And dance. And pin. Once you nail those down you have the question of timing. ;^)
FWIW, the entire cat family, and a good many others, are obligate carnivores. That means they must have the concentrated nutrition in meat, as their digestive tracts are too short to effectively digest anything else. Many other “carnivores,” such as humans, bears and dogs, are really omnivores, as they can survive just fine without meat.
Fairly often today’s nutso vegans try to convert their kitty, which usually results in Fluffy starving to death.
“This is my biggest bugaboo with those that state that evolution is compatible with creation.”
Yep, they are not compatible, even if Genesis is allegory, the whole premise the Bible assumes is nature is in need of redemption.
Nothing has teeth like the carnosaurs had for eating apples and oranges. Like I said, the dinosaurs walking around prior to the flood were leftovers and likely did not include any of the dangerous kinds. It seems likely to me that there was an age of dinosaurs which was a fang/claw sort of age, followed by the antediluvian period described in Genesis during which meat was not eaten, followed by what you read after the flood.
I don’t think it’s equivalent at all. The Bible clearly says some stuff about humanity, creation, and the fall. If that stuff isn’t true, the Bible isn’t true.
I’m not just talking about the definition of “day”. I’m talking about the origin of death and suffering and the need of a Holy Sacrifice to cure death. The Humanist/quasi-Christian hybrid called “Old Earth” has a problem when it comes to the origins of death and suffering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.