Page 6 of 23

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:53 am
by Byblos
B. W. wrote:Let's not forget who God was speaking too when he told who would die if they ate off the forbidden tree and God was not speaking to animals was he?
-
-
-
And this puts us back on topic, thanks B.W.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:15 pm
by Jac3510
zoe wrote:HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part
Of course not. I wasn't responding to the argument that there was not animal death; I was responding to Byblos' implication (as I understood it) that physical death may not have been the penalty for Adam's sin; a suggestion he put forward in response to Narnia's question.
I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:

IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:

1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .
What do you think this animal eats?

Image

Looks pretty scary, huh? Big teeth . . . must be designed for tearing at flesh, eh? Or take a look at its claws:

Image

Those claws are really powerful--very sharp. They are strong enough to scar tree trunks, and easily powerful enough to tear flesh from bone.

Why would a panda need all that? If we didn't observe them today, we'd doubtlessly think that they were carnivorous animals if we had only their bones to go by. But is that bad design? Of course not. They eat bamboo, so they need sharp teeth and powerful claws to get at their food. All I'm saying is that such carnivorous design doesn't necessarily require carnivorous intent.

Some more example, just to prove the point:

Image

Fruit bat skull

Image

Muntjac skull

Image

Heterodontosaurus skull

I could keep going--we could look at the skulls and teeth of omnivores (think, for instance, of dog skulls) and still other sharp-toothed herbivores--but the point is clear, I think. Just because an animal has sharp teeth, binocular vision, etc., doesn't mean it has to be designed for predatory activity.
2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them
Under YEC views, God created the entire universe in six days. He changed the body of the serpent so that it no longer had legs. I don't suspect God would have had any problems making the adaptations necessary to introduce carnivorous activity, especially if some designs could be easily tweaked for that purpose (see above).
Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.
You are going to have a problem with Gen. 1:22, then. Even post-fall, God had to do something to get mankind out of the garden so that he could not eat from the Tree of Life, or else he would have lived forever. You also have Jesus eating (which implies the breaking down of all kinds of things!), and yet, His glorified bodies will never die, nor will ours.

It appears, then, that God is more than capable of sustaining life forever. If He can bring Lazarus back from the dead and heal the blind and the sick, I don't think He had any troubles renewing biological life, do you?
IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.
Fundamentally, no, it didn't have to be. In fact, it could not have been fundamentally different and still be considered the same thing. What had to change was not the fundamentals, but various aspects within creation that affected how various parts interacted with one another. Teeth that were once used for tearing wood from branches are now used for tearing flesh from bone. Digestion tracks that were once used for breaking down silt is now used to break down flesh. Some changes would be deeper than others, but I don't see any reason to recoil at any of them at all. They seem, rather, perfectly plausible.
I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2
As already said, I assume you'll agree that the panda's teeth and claws aren't bad design. Thus, you'll concede that such structures do not necessarily imply carnivorous purposes, even if they allow for it. This principle was rather humorously demonstrated in The Little Mermaid when Ariel picks up a fork and begins brushing her hair with it. She had no clue it coudl be used for anything else! In other words, don't fall into the modern trap of thinking that structure necessarily determines function; certainly structure is related to it, but unless you are omniscient, you can't guarantee that the intended function for any given structure is that which you think best fits it. In fact, I'll give you one last skull to really prove the point:

Image

Here's a lion's skull. This clearly is designed to eat meat, right? But what does Isaiah say? "The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." (11:7) "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD." (65:25) Does this mean that the lion's body, then, is bad design? Of course not. Structures can have multiple uses, and the primary purpose actually might not be what you expect.

Now, when that is realized, the second point becomes much easier to see, as wholesale changes are not essential (although, even if they were, they are not impossible); and the evidence for the second? You can't argue that there is none without begging the question. YEC theology expressly states that the world is different now than it used to be. To argue that there is no evidence just assumes the very thing that the YEC/OEC people are debating!

As for evidence that it was the case? Narnia's question, I think, was a rather good one. And besides that, you still have the statement in 1:30 that can easily be taken to mean that animals were originally vegetarian, a position I've defended both in this thread and the one on hermeneutics. Finally, you have the general eschatological picture at the end of lions laying down with lambs (maybe bad design again?!? ;)); granted, OECers reject any connection with Gen 1, arguing that the end is not a restoration of things, but I wonder how much of that is just because that's a necessary consequence of OEC. That's one of the main reasons I never could fully embrace the position, because eschatology of Isaiah seems to look back to Eden as much as it does forward the the Millennium. Now, if that reading of Isaiah is correct, then we have yet more evidence for a lack of carnivorous activity before the Fall.

Byblos wrote:Jac,

I was referring to the quoted passage only but I can always count on you to keep my theology in check (and hopefully I yours). But it gives me great pleasure to see you quote material from my church and agree with it. There's hope for you after all my friend :D .

As for the subject of physical death as a penalty for sin, at heart I do agree with it but this little nagging theistic evolutionist in me keeps creeping up. I'm working on it though.
There's hope for both of us yet, Byblos! Iron sharpens iron, eh? :)

B.W. wrote:Let's not forget who God was speaking too when he told who would die if they ate off the forbidden tree and God was not speaking to animals was he?
What animals sinned during the Flood, and yet, how many were destroyed? And did was God speaking to the ground or even the garden when He told Adam not to eat of the fruit, and yet, the ground was expressly cursed because of that sin (3:17).

I realize that the idea of creation falling with man is not a popular theology with OEC, but I'd submit that it is not popular because it violates the presumptions of OEC and no other reason. We could use still another example. God wasn't speaking to the animals in Gen 9, and yet God instilled in them there a great fear of human beings (I wonder how that fits in with modern science? What would a secular scientist think of the proposition that before Mesopotamian Flood described in Genesis 6-9 that animals had no fear of humans. Probably not much). So, it is evident that just because God does not address animals it does not follow that they do not share in judgment on humanity.

A final point on this: even if we reject the "restoration" theology of the Second Advent, the argument that animals don't suffer under and/or aren't affected by humanity's relationship with the world is still falsified by eschatology. For it is evident that carnivorous activity will cease when Christ returns and death will be finally conquered. But there is no evidence that the design of these animals will change (which speaks against zoe's argument against design, as well as her argument of fundamental change); but my point to you is this: it is when man is fully restored to God and when Christ sets up His rule, and when sin is no more--that is, when the glory of mankind is fully revealed--that the animals will take part in the great glorification of earth. Thus, if the animal kingdom will come under such blessing as a result of our exaltation, it follows that the animal kingdom, and indeed the rest of nature, is, in fact, capable of being--and will be--subjected to blessing and curses based on our relationship with God.

edit:

To all: see the following brief article for a very interesting discussion on how easily carnivorous animals can be (and have been!) made into complete herbivores:

//www.rae.org/catlover.html

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:12 am
by zoegirl
Jac3510 wrote:
zoe wrote:HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part
Of course not. I wasn't responding to the argument that there was not animal death; I was responding to Byblos' implication (as I understood it) that physical death may not have been the penalty for Adam's sin; a suggestion he put forward in response to Narnia's question.
My apologies, I responded too quickly to this...thanks for clearing this up[/quote]
jac wrote:
I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:

IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:

1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .
What do you think this animal eats?

Image

Looks pretty scary, huh? Big teeth . . . must be designed for tearing at flesh, eh? Or take a look at its claws:

Image

Those claws are really powerful--very sharp. They are strong enough to scar tree trunks, and easily powerful enough to tear flesh from bone.

Why would a panda need all that? If we didn't observe them today, we'd doubtlessly think that they were carnivorous animals if we had only their bones to go by. But is that bad design? Of course not. They eat bamboo, so they need sharp teeth and powerful claws to get at their food. All I'm saying is that such carnivorous design doesn't necessarily require carnivorous intent.

Some more example, just to prove the point:

Image

Fruit bat skull

Image

Muntjac skull

Image

Heterodontosaurus skull

I could keep going--we could look at the skulls and teeth of omnivores (think, for instance, of dog skulls) and still other sharp-toothed herbivores--but the point is clear, I think. Just because an animal has sharp teeth, binocular vision, etc., doesn't mean it has to be designed for predatory activity.

But even omnivores have different designs. Pandas hav different behaviors, different diestive systems.

For the deer (muntjac) notice the antlers, they are smalle than deer with antlers.
//www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=1286 wrote:Canine teeth, the larger teeth near the front of the mouth, are something we associate with dogs and are found in many kinds of mammals. In those deer that lack antlers, the upper canine teeth are enlarged and sharp, and are clearly used as display mechanisms to scare away less dominant animals. In more drastic use, these canine teeth are used to fight fairly wicked battles. The deer of North America, in contrast, lack upper canine teeth. In white tailed deer, only the male deer (the buck) bears antlers, which grow ever-larger as the animal matures. These bucks use the antlers to intimidate smaller bucks, or during the rutting season will use the antlers to fight with other bucks. Thus, the antlers of our deer and the canine teeth of the Chinese water deer have relatively similar functions in male against male competition during the breeding season. Some biologists question the inclusion of the water deer (and the other genus and species of "deer" that lack upper canine teeth) in the deer family. But, other features of the animal including anatomy and genetics have argued for the retention of these animals within the Cervidae. That could be the topic of another commentary. Our antlered "deer" include white-tailed deer in the eastern United States, and mule deer which are primarily western. Additionally, the deer include elk, caribou and moose. Some of these are found throughout the world in the northern hemisphere. The Chinese water deer is found in the Yangtze River region of China. These deer are rather small, weighing only about 20-25 pounds. But, given the tusk-like nature of their canines, let's be glad for their small size. Males square off against rival males and attack by swinging their heads and teeth against their opponents neck and chest. The battles can and often do result in injuries
By and large, you are giving me exceptions to the rule, whereas I can go to a plethora of websites and textbooks (secular and creationionist) that outline pretty basic body plans. The canines of those that you have mentioned, like thepanda and the fruit bat, do use them in their diet, for the plants/fruit skins.

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/736059.stm

But it is not just the teeth: true carnivores haevery different digestive systems, different brains, different energetics, different bacterial growth in their intestines and certainly different behaviors.
jac wrote:
2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them
Under YEC views, God created the entire universe in six days. He changed the body of the serpent so that it no longer had legs. I don't suspect God would have had any problems making the adaptations necessary to introduce carnivorous activity, especially if some designs could be easily tweaked for that purpose (see above).
Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.
You are going to have a problem with Gen. 1:22, then. Even post-fall, God had to do something to get mankind out of the garden so that he could not eat from the Tree of Life, or else he would have lived forever. You also have Jesus eating (which implies the breaking down of all kinds of things!), and yet, His glorified bodies will never die, nor will ours.
I *dont'* hve a problem with it....The issue still remian, however, what the worldwas like pre-fall, not in our glorified bodies.
It appears, then, that God is more than capable of sustaining life forever. If He can bring Lazarus back from the dead and heal the blind and the sick, I don't think He had any troubles renewing biological life, do you?
So do you suppose that He made the shark (a solely carnivorous animal) with the capability to kill? How did He create it and then feed it....andstill renew Biological life? Ae you saying that He would have provided the fish and then brought the fish back to life?

Then again, why make a carnivorous body plan?
jac wrote:
IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.
Fundamentally, no, it didn't have to be. In fact, it could not have been fundamentally different and still be considered the same thing. What had to change was not the fundamentals, but various aspects within creation that affected how various parts interacted with one another. Teeth that were once used for tearing wood from branches are now used for tearing flesh from bone. Digestion tracks that were once used for breaking down silt is now used to break down flesh. Some changes would be deeper than others, but I don't see any reason to recoil at any of them at all. They seem, rather, perfectly plausible.
I'm sorry but I view this as a very unsatisfactory answer. A very typical answer but veryunsatisfactory...You (a general you) can't say that, in one turn,God's creation wonderfully desgined and then point me out a shark, a lion, or an eagle , a hawk, a praying mantis, all of the spiders, snakes? and tell me that these creatures did not use their "wonderful design" for eating plants....THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNSUITED TO EAT PLANTS.

THe eagle , with its talons? sharp beak? sharp vision? its speed in diving? IT would have no use for these if it were just meant to eat berries or fruit. If I were to take this to any zoologist and make this claim they would about near laugh themselvs silly. Ever hear of the phrase perfectly designed killer?

In fact, when I google this, I find articles that furiously try to explain this away from typical YEC sites. It is *such* a basic premise in simple biol;ogical observation, that it *has* to be explained because it is so compelling. If, in fact, someone told me that God created these creatures in such a way, I would be hard pressed to find creationism any more rational than evolution. Using this rational (that GOd created body plans that are perfectly suited to huntingbut they are not hunters) it hardly seems fair to criticize evoltuinary models whereby animals have parts no that they don't use.
I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2
As already said, I assume you'll agree that the panda's teeth and claws aren't bad design. Thus, you'll concede that such structures do not necessarily imply carnivorous purposes, even if they allow for it.
Again, you are using exceptions to try to prove a rule. Try to argue againstthe examples I gave (spider, snake, praying mantis, eagle, shark).
This principle was rather humorously demonstrated in The Little Mermaid when Ariel picks up a fork and begins brushing her hair with it. She had no clue it coudl be used for anything else! In other words, don't fall into the modern trap of thinking that structure necessarily determines function; certainly structure is related to it, but unless you are omniscient, you can't guarantee that the intended function for any given structure is that which you think best fits it. In fact, I'll give you one last skull to really prove the point:

Image

Here's a lion's skull. This clearly is designed to eat meat, right? But what does Isaiah say? "The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." (11:7) "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD." (65:25) Does this mean that the lion's body, then, is bad design? Of course not. Structures can have multiple uses, and the primary purpose actually might not be what you expect.
Jac, Structure and Function is a fundmental foundation upon which al biological systems are built. Enzymes, Molecules, atoms BEHAVE the way they do because of their structure. I'm sorry but the verse you are using may be good in showing the* future* but it in no way applies to the past. YOureally suppose that a shark was vegetarian prefall? A snake? An eagle? a praying mantis? A corspe beetle? Shoot, even FUNGI are decomposers. When in JOb God BOASTS of these beasts. Would God BOAST of a beast doing something it wasn't suppoed to be doing?!?!?!?


Now, when that is realized, the second point becomes much easier to see, as wholesale changes are not essential (although, even if they were, they are not impossible); and the evidence for the second? You can't argue that there is none without begging the question. YEC theology expressly states that the world is different now than it used to be. To argue that there is no evidence just assumes the very thing that the YEC/OEC people are debating!

As for evidence that it was the case? Narnia's question, I think, was a rather good one. And besides that, you still have the statement in 1:30 that can easily be taken to mean that animals were originally vegetarian, a position I've defended both in this thread and the one on hermeneutics. Finally, you have the general eschatological picture at the end of lions laying down with lambs (maybe bad design again?!? ;)); granted, OECers reject any connection with Gen 1, arguing that the end is not a restoration of things, but I wonder how much of that is just because that's a necessary consequence of OEC. That's one of the main reasons I never could fully embrace the position, because eschatology of Isaiah seems to look back to Eden as much as it does forward the the Millennium. Now, if that reading of Isaiah is correct, then we have yet more evidence for a lack of carnivorous activity before the Fall.

All of this is fine IF we stop throwing around "good design". I believe that God is a God of good design, of good engineering. TO tell me that God created the carnivores with the overall predator design without the predator mandate is stretching His creation more than it needs to be stretched.

jac wrote:I realize that the idea of creation falling with man is not a popular theology with OEC, but I'd submit that it is not popular because it violates the presumptions of OEC and no other reason. We could use still another example. God wasn't speaking to the animals in Gen 9, and yet God instilled in them there a great fear of human beings (I wonder how that fits in with modern science? What would a secular scientist think of the proposition that before Mesopotamian Flood described in Genesis 6-9 that animals had no fear of humans. Probably not much). So, it is evident that just because God does not address animals it does not follow that they do not share in judgment on humanity.

Jac , I actually don't dispute that the creation fell with the curse....I dipute what that means on a mechanistic level. YEC have claimed all sorts of things with the curse (I even remember hearing that this is where the earth tilted on its axis, leading to the seasons and "death") with regards to creation. I have no doubts that something happened relationally and even perhaps physically. I disagree to what the "physically" means.

C.S. Lewis paints a very interesting portrait in Perelandra of the relationship between the dragon and the human, it was different, no fear.
A final point on this: even if we reject the "restoration" theology of the Second Advent, the argument that animals don't suffer under and/or aren't affected by humanity's relationship with the world

I certainly don't reject this. I think the fll did affect our raltinahip to animals. Whether *their* relatinship to each oter was affected I don't think we can draw any solidconclusions.
is still falsified by eschatology. For it is evident that carnivorous activity will cease when Christ returns and death will be finally conquered.
CAn I ask you somehting, Jac? what makes this verse an actual picure instead of metaphorical (jsut curious).
But there is no evidence that the design of these animals will change (which speaks against zoe's argument against design, as well as her argument of fundamental change);
Of course there is no eviene that designed changed with the fall whch implies thatGod made a bad design with the sharks, the snakes, the spiders, the eagle.....
but my point to you is this: it is when man is fully restored to God and when Christ sets up His rule, and when sin is no more--that is, when the glory of mankind is fully revealed--that the animals will take part in the great glorification of earth. Thus, if the animal kingdom will come under such blessing as a result of our exaltation, it follows that the animal kingdom, and indeed the rest of nature, is, in fact, capable of being--and will be--subjected to blessing and curses based on our relationship with God.
no debate here
edit:

To all: see the following brief article for a very interesting discussion on how easily carnivorous animals can be (and have been!) made into complete herbivores:

//www.rae.org/catlover.html
Typical YEC arguments. If this works for you that's great. Show me then how they cn change a shark, an eagle, a praying mantis, a spider, a snake, fungi.... this again this stresses the silliness of uilding an animal with such a design that would eat cereal. Why would He build a praying mantis with such speed....to catch fruit? Gee, those hard to catch fruit certaily requires fast forelimbs. Why would He build a shark with rows upon rows of teeth if it was going to simply eat plants? Or wth the reflexes to respond to prey?

YOu know, I think the silliest thing I heard from someone was "I certainly hope God has "meat-trees" in the new kingdom because I d love my meat and I would hate to give that up" (I am NOT making that up). If we truly believe that Go'd s intention was for us to be vegetarians than we shoud all be vegetarians in accordanc with restoration of HIs kingdom.


Jac, it may all be as you say. Ultimately it strains the testament of HIs creation. It makes God out to be capricous in HIs designs. (which, for YEC, is a huge problem)

Bottom line:

1) THe examples you give are either exceptions or have perfectly good reasons for the canines
2) Most of the tru predators have designs that would strain the idea of God as a good designer
3) I don't dispute that the creation ws affected by the fall, I disagree with HOW it affected it
4) I think it is straining His creation to go hrough all of these hoops to explain away carnivory when God BOASTS about it in JOb (which hardly seems like a God who wants only plant eaters)
5) The new kingdom that Isaiah refers to isn't a necssary argument for what Eden was like pre-fall
6) I think you till labor under the misunderstanding of OEC thinking. Fro you it seems to be "this way or the high way". Or that it has to be this way and you can't have it that way because you are OEC.

//www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:46 pm
by Jac3510
But even omnivores have different designs. Pandas hav different behaviors, different diestive systems.

For the deer (muntjac) notice the antlers, they are smalle than deer with antlers.

By and large, you are giving me exceptions to the rule, whereas I can go to a plethora of websites and textbooks (secular and creationionist) that outline pretty basic body plans. The canines of those that you have mentioned, like thepanda and the fruit bat, do use them in their diet, for the plants/fruit skins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/736059.stm

But it is not just the teeth: true carnivores haevery different digestive systems, different brains, different energetics, different bacterial growth in their intestines and certainly different behaviors.
Of course I'm giving you exceptions. Put your argument in a syllogism, zoe:

1. Carnivorous design is only good if it is for carnivorous activity;
2. All carnivorous design is for carnivorous activity;
3. Thus, carnivorous design is good.

You could phrase this one of a million ways to emphasize the goodness of the design, the exclusivity of the design, etc., but in the end (2) is false, no matter how you phrase it. It's not an exception, zoe. It's a counter-example. The point I'm making is that "carnivorous design" does NOT necessarily require carnivorous activity, and I've presented "carnivorous design" that is found in herbivores to prove it.

Regarding the bacteria, intestines, brain functions, etc., again, the article I linked to that you dismissed pointed out that we have laboratory research that explains this. Very, very crude methods can be used to turn cats into pure herbivores, zoe. If that's the case, then I have absolutely NO problem with seeing how herbivorous cats could have become carnivorous at the Fall.
I *dont'* hve a problem with it....The issue still remian, however, what the worldwas like pre-fall, not in our glorified bodies.
Forgive me, I'm assuming that you recognize that humans did not die prior to the Fall. This thread is about animal death, but human death is important here, too. If you are going to insist that humans died, too, then I point you to my response to Byblos on that above, and then will dismiss OEC as simply absurd and silly--no more and no less--for the lengths you have to go to defend your position.

If, on the other hand, you can accept human immortality prior to death, then you DO have a problem, because the very fact that humans could eat and break things down prior to the Fall, and that this property is found in humans POST fall, AND is found in humans in their glorified states, demonstrates conclusively that your statement that "the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death" is simply false. What it depends on is the sustaining power of God, as per Gen 3:22 (both pre- and post-fallen world).
So do you suppose that He made the shark (a solely carnivorous animal) with the capability to kill? How did He create it and then feed it....andstill renew Biological life? Ae you saying that He would have provided the fish and then brought the fish back to life?

Then again, why make a carnivorous body plan?
Question begging. You are assuming the shark was originally carnivorous, and thus, that the body design must have been for carnivorous purposes. What makes the body plan carnivorous in the first place? Because it is effecient in killing and eating meat? Fine, but I've already demonstrated that doesn't follow logically. Remember Ariel's fork?

Why make the body plan? Perhaps for aesthetic reasons. God is certainly a God of diversity, and perhaps, after the Fall, certain of those body plans began being used in a way contrary to its initial purpose, even if it was capable of it (again, think of the fork).
I'm sorry but I view this as a very unsatisfactory answer. A very typical answer but veryunsatisfactory...You (a general you) can't say that, in one turn,God's creation wonderfully desgined and then point me out a shark, a lion, or an eagle , a hawk, a praying mantis, all of the spiders, snakes? and tell me that these creatures did not use their "wonderful design" for eating plants....THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNSUITED TO EAT PLANTS.

THe eagle , with its talons? sharp beak? sharp vision? its speed in diving? IT would have no use for these if it were just meant to eat berries or fruit. If I were to take this to any zoologist and make this claim they would about near laugh themselvs silly. Ever hear of the phrase perfectly designed killer?

In fact, when I google this, I find articles that furiously try to explain this away from typical YEC sites. It is *such* a basic premise in simple biol;ogical observation, that it *has* to be explained because it is so compelling. If, in fact, someone told me that God created these creatures in such a way, I would be hard pressed to find creationism any more rational than evolution. Using this rational (that GOd created body plans that are perfectly suited to huntingbut they are not hunters) it hardly seems fair to criticize evoltuinary models whereby animals have parts no that they don't use.
If I understood the argument like you're presenting it, I'd call it unsatisfactory, too. Who says that the eagle was designed to kill?

Here's my question to you: just because some structure can be effective at completing a task, does it necessarily follow that it was therefore designed for that task? (Hint, think of Ariel's fork again!)

Obviously not. So you can show me all the beautifully "designed" killers you want. It doesn't follow that they were therefore necessarily designed for the purpose of being killers. It simply doesn't follow. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective there have been small adaptations that have made them more effecient in their killing. Fine, but the logical point you are missing is that possible structure does not necessarily lead to intended design. I've demonstrated how that is false even in this world with several cases (the various skulls, the fork, and the lion skull).
Again, you are using exceptions to try to prove a rule. Try to argue againstthe examples I gave (spider, snake, praying mantis, eagle, shark).
You're doing the same thing atheists do when they ask about a particular moral evil: "How could God allow THAT one, huh?!?" What is important is not the example, it's the principle, and the principle is, again:

Structural effectiveness does not necessarily guarantee intended design.

Let's just say I could not give explanations for each of your examples (which you could multiply indefinitely!): does it then follow that because I don't know an answer, there therefore is not one? Of course not. Again, put it in a basic syllogism:

1. Jac can't think of the answer to the question
2. ?
3. Therefore, there is no answer to the question

The only way to make this valid is to provide "Jac knows all the answers." In other words, your argument is loaded because it requires me to assume omniscience! Obviously, I'm not. What I CAN do, however, is offer counter-examples to your claim that carnivorous design is only good if it leads to carnivorous activity (which I've done repeatedly now).

For the record, I think I can give explanations for each of those, but I won't offer them on the principle I've discussed here. We need to keep the argument focused on the right thing, and the right thing is which principles are logically valid. I'm trying to show you that yours are not, and that your objections to mine are equally fallacious.
Jac, Structure and Function is a fundmental foundation upon which al biological systems are built. Enzymes, Molecules, atoms BEHAVE the way they do because of their structure. I'm sorry but the verse you are using may be good in showing the* future* but it in no way applies to the past. YOureally suppose that a shark was vegetarian prefall? A snake? An eagle? a praying mantis? A corspe beetle? Shoot, even FUNGI are decomposers. When in JOb God BOASTS of these beasts. Would God BOAST of a beast doing something it wasn't suppoed to be doing?!?!?!?
Let's examine your first sentence here, zoe:

"Structure and Function is a fundmental foundation upon which al biological systems are built"

Do you see the presupposition there? In order for this to be true, you must ASSUME that they were built for the purpose doing what we observe them presently doing. But since that is the entire issue under discussion, this is nothing more than a circular argument, and thus logically invalid. It's just irrational.

Secondly, there is a difference in chemistry and zoology, so the comparison of sharks to atoms is illegitimate.

Thirdly, arguments of incredulity have no place in a rational discussion. Whether or not it is incredible that sharks, snakes, eagles, praying mantises, and corpose beatles were once herbivores, the question we have to answer is, is there evidence that they were? It doesn't matter how shocking it may seem. If that's what the Bible says (and I maintain that it is), then it's no more shocking than the idea that time is relative to space!

Fourthly, regarding God's boasting in Job, let's look at the relevant verses:
  • Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat. (38:39-41, KJV)

    Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high? She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place. From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off. Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she. (39:27-30, KJV)
Regarding lions, there is nothing here that talks about what lions were designed originally to do. God is simply pointing out His own greatness, that while Job is incapable of taming and feeding such a beast, yet God is able to. Do we expect God to let such animals starve because men fell? No, but God causes blessings on both the good and the wicked; if He feeds evil people, how much more will He feed animals?

With the eagle, God points to the amazing attributes that she has. Could Job ever climb to such heights or feed his family so easily? But what does that say of original design? Nothing. The point is that Job is small. He isn't capable of telling her what to do, but the implication is that God is! But, again, that has nothing to do with design. How would it have furthered God's argument to explain to Job that it wasn't always this way? The point of the entire passage is to demonstrate to Job that he doesn't have the faintest idea nor the smallest amoung of authority to mount the charges that he is. To prove it, God points to nature as it currently is, and if this nature is a fallen nature, then how much more powerful is that argument than if God were to point to an unfallen nature?!? For if God had done the latter, Job may well have said, "Yes, but God, we are all fallen--I can do no such things because the world is different now!" But when Job cannot even answer such questions about an imperfect, fallen world, how much more should be cautious of challenging the God who created a perfect, unfallen world?

Finally, you didn't deal with the substance of my objection here. Your entire argument is that function and structure go hand in hand, that it would be BAD DESIGN for carnivorous animals to be herbivores. And yet, in the new heavens and earth, that is precisely what we will have! You have a Job problem of your own, my friend. Are you going to look God in the eye in the new creation, point to the lion, and say, "Bad design, God!"

Of course not! But would you think it in your mind? You tell me, zoe. Will the lion's body be a bad design for a world without death, a world in which he will be eating straw? You can't say "yes" without claiming omniscience; thus, by the same principle, you can't tell me that the lion, or ANY carnivorous body type, is bad design for herbivorous activity without also claiming omniscience.
All of this is fine IF we stop throwing around "good design". I believe that God is a God of good design, of good engineering. TO tell me that God created the carnivores with the overall predator design without the predator mandate is stretching His creation more than it needs to be stretched.
See above. The question is, "Design for what." Just because the design works for predation does not mean that it is only, or even primarily, for the purpose of predation. And until you can demonstrate omniscience, you can't fulfill the syllogism I offered above validly.
Jac , I actually don't dispute that the creation fell with the curse....I dipute what that means on a mechanistic level. YEC have claimed all sorts of things with the curse (I even remember hearing that this is where the earth tilted on its axis, leading to the seasons and "death") with regards to creation. I have no doubts that something happened relationally and even perhaps physically. I disagree to what the "physically" means.

C.S. Lewis paints a very interesting portrait in Perelandra of the relationship between the dragon and the human, it was different, no fear.
You know better than that, zoe. Just because someone makes one wrong claim doesn't mean other claims were wrong, too. If so, you may as well quit being a Christian, because Christians have claimed all kinds of wrong things in the past. This, then, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation and serves only to attempt to put YECs in a "stupid" camp who make "stupid" claims and thus associate the present claim with the same level of "stupidity." Intentional or not, that's precisely the effect.

With that out of the way, your reply here said nothing to the substance of my remarks in the paragraph you quoted. I was responding to B.W.'s claim that God's commands to Adam weren't directed at animals, and therefore, there is no reason to suggest that animals fell under the purview of Adam's curse. But Gen 9 does show that animals fall under the purview of human judgment. Does that prove that there were carnivorous animals before the Fall? No, nor was it an argument for such. It was an argument against B.W.'s incorrect claim. It is a biblical defense of a major pillar of YEC theology.
I certainly don't reject this. I think the fll did affect our raltinahip to animals. Whether *their* relatinship to each oter was affected I don't think we can draw any solidconclusions.
You can't accept it and maintain OEC, zoe. If the new heavens and new earth of Isa 66 restores the conditions of Eden before Gen. 3, and if the conditions of Isa 66 mean no animal death, then the conditions of pre-fallen Eden must also include no animal death.
CAn I ask you somehting, Jac? what makes this verse an actual picure instead of metaphorical (jsut curious).
It's repeated twice, neither time with any explanation, and both times strongly painting the picture of a deathless new world with the advent of the Messiah. What reason would we have for taking it non-literally? The only ones who reject it do so for theological reasons, not hermeneutical. Let's put it this way: there's no hermeneutical reason whatsoever to take in any way other than straightfowardly.
Of course there is no eviene that designed changed with the fall whch implies thatGod made a bad design with the sharks, the snakes, the spiders, the eagle.....
Of course there is. We've been talking about it in this thread. Don't be like the atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God's existence just because they reject the conclusions. When I say there is no evidence of design change in the future, I mean just that: NO EVIDENCE. I'll retract that if you provide any (even if I disagree with it). But I've given no less than three arguments that design did change at the Fall (or, at least, the use of existing design):

1. Restoration theology of Isa 66;
2. Vegetarian animal diet of Gen 1:2-30;
3. Narnia's still unanswered question.
no debate here
Again, you cannot accept a restoration theology without accepting that there was no animal death before the Fall. Observe:

1. The conditions of the millennium will restore the earth to its pre-Fallen state;
2. The conditions of the millennium include no animal vioence;
3. Thus, pre-Fallen earth must have had no animal violence.

You have to reject either (1)--which is to reject the restoration theology you've twice assented to here--or (2), which I see no basis for.
Typical YEC arguments. If this works for you that's great. Show me then how they cn change a shark, an eagle, a praying mantis, a spider, a snake, fungi.... this again this stresses the silliness of uilding an animal with such a design that would eat cereal. Why would He build a praying mantis with such speed....to catch fruit? Gee, those hard to catch fruit certaily requires fast forelimbs. Why would He build a shark with rows upon rows of teeth if it was going to simply eat plants? Or wth the reflexes to respond to prey?
See above, and please, let's not be dismissive with such statements as "Typical YEC arguments." Labeling an argument does nothing to show its rightness or wrongness.
YOu know, I think the silliest thing I heard from someone was "I certainly hope God has "meat-trees" in the new kingdom because I d love my meat and I would hate to give that up" (I am NOT making that up). If we truly believe that Go'd s intention was for us to be vegetarians than we shoud all be vegetarians in accordanc with restoration of HIs kingdom.
I'm not going to take this as an argument against YEC, because I suspect that you know better. Interesting anecdote, though, about people abusing theology.
Jac, it may all be as you say. Ultimately it strains the testament of HIs creation. It makes God out to be capricous in HIs designs.
Again, you are claiming omniscience.

1. Zoe can't provide a non-capricous basis for carnivorous body types to be non-carnivorous;
2. If Zoe can't provide a non-capricous basis for carnivorous body types to be non-carnivorous, then the design must be capricous;
3. Therefore, the design must be capricous.

(2) is obviously false. Just because YOU can't think of a reason doesn't mean God couldn't.
Bottom line:

1) THe examples you give are either exceptions or have perfectly good reasons for the canines
2) Most of the tru predators have designs that would strain the idea of God as a good designer
3) I don't dispute that the creation ws affected by the fall, I disagree with HOW it affected it
4) I think it is straining His creation to go hrough all of these hoops to explain away carnivory when God BOASTS about it in JOb (which hardly seems like a God who wants only plant eaters)
5) The new kingdom that Isaiah refers to isn't a necssary argument for what Eden was like pre-fall
6) I think you till labor under the misunderstanding of OEC thinking. Fro you it seems to be "this way or the high way". Or that it has to be this way and you can't have it that way because you are OEC.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html
Six bottoms lines? Ok . . .

1. They are not exceptions: they are counter-examples to your argument of necessary design;
2. Assumes omniscience
3. Fine. Then you don't follow a standard line of assault against YEC arguments, that nature didn't fall with man;
4. Job mentions nothing about original design; indeed, in context, it would be harmful to the argument if God did;
5. Then you reject restoration theology, which is fine. But those of us who see the passage as pointing back to Eden have very good biblical reasons for believing that there were no carnivorous animals before the Fall.
6. Nice ad hominem. I've been a member of these boards long before you came around. I was a mod long before you came around. I've defended OEC long before I've ever criticized it.

You should recant on (6) especially. It's a terrible line of thought. Just because I disagree with you, I must therefore not understand your position? Please. That makes all argument unfalsifiable and all argument impossible. I may as well say that you don't understand YEC. Perhaps my problems with OEC are not due to the fact that I don't understand it, but due to the fact that I do.

And I've read Rich's article. It's full of strawmen. No one argues that there was no plant death before the Fall. I've dealt extensively with his take on Gen 1:29-30. Basing an argument on the names of carnivorous animals is patently absurd; it assumes that Hebrew was the original spoken language AND that the names Adam gave them in Hebrew is the name that was kept until Moses wrote the book. In fact, we have no statements about what Adam called anything. The argument that Adam wouldn't have known what death is invalid for multiple reasons. Among them, it assumes that we have the full conversation between God and Adam. Moses' readers knew what death was, so there was no reason to go into any fuller discussion of the matter. And you reject Rich's last point anyway, so we both agree he's wrong there. Regarding Rom 5:12 and 1 Cor 15:21, I'll not go into a detailed exegesis here other than to say that I see problems with his approach. The argument about God's character rests on such debunked notions as God creating carnivores on day six (which he defends based on the names idea); and the final point is just a rejection of restoration theology.

All in all, hardly impressive. Or should I say, "Typical OEC arguments." ;)

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:07 pm
by zoegirl
Jac,

All I can say at this point is that I hear you essentially saying

1) God could have made it so (I don't disagree)
2) Most importantly you say
jac wrote:Obviously not. So you can show me all the beautifully "designed" killers you want. It doesn't follow that they were therefore necessarily designed for the purpose of being killers. It simply doesn't follow. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective there have been small adaptations that have made them more effecient in their killing. Fine, but the logical point you are missing is that possible structure does not necessarily lead to intended design. I've demonstrated how that is false even in this world with several cases (the various skulls, the fork, and the lion skull).
Forgive me, but you haven't demonstrated it false with those skulls at all, all you have shown is that there are a few exceptions. Which one can do with any basic structure (wings, forinstnce) , and it doesn't negate the basic premise of the structure. I can say, "wow, look at the wings, they are perfectly suited to flight" you can point to me the ostrich and the rhea as to the exception and it doens't negate that birds that fly have wings.

You've given me an example of a fork which of course can be strained to show has multiple functions. You have tried to gve examples of where animals have multiple designs but have basically resorted to the "anything goes" approach to the design.

Of course structure can have multiple functions...for instance we do see herbivorous animals with sharp claws. we can use some basic intelligence; however, and put together a body plan that reveals a *total package*
jac wrote:Structural effectiveness does not necessarily guarantee intended design.
Which, perhaps, I could maybe could buy if it weren't for the fact that creationists don't rely on this argument for the creation. usually the argument is more on the design element. Rarely do I here the creationist argue: "boy, we can't make any conclusions about *anything* in biology,since just becuase it looks like something doesn't make it so"....But you guys DON"T say that....every week on this one radio station I hear the creaiton moment and they wax poetic about the "efficiency and design" .

And secondly, it simply strains basic observational skills which god Himself has given us. What is simpler to conclude: That God has given us basic intelligence to observe and draw conclusions? That whenever we do see an instance of a top solely carnivorous animal we see some basic similarities and some very very uniques structure in these animals and draw the conclusion that these basic similarities and unique structures are there for the purpose of hunting.


Or....

that in *every* instance of our observing these structures, not only are these structures NOT originally designed for hunting, but they are, in fact, designed for some peaceful function. this second premise denies not only a VERY basic premise, that of structure and function, but a basic observational skills and validity of our observations. To say that any structure that I presented (the praying mantis, the shark, the eagle) in these animals are open to interpreation strips us of using the very brains God has given us. There are of course, exceptions to every rule. But for those animals that have canine teeth, the deer, we can SEE the other function!!! We can observe te male deer fighting with other deer. (which of course, is another *mean* aspect of God's creation....why hurt each other for the females...was this before the fall?)

To deny the validity of the relationship between structure and function calls into question pretty much every observation we have made from chemistry to physics to zoology.

If we cannot draw these very simply conclusions without questioning their validity then before the fall...
1) the pelican's beak must surely have held oodles of plants...
2) The flat molars of herbivores are called into question....why, since cats can eat cereal, do cows need flat molars?
3) the baleen teeth of whales must be totally off base, well, gee they may have been for cleaning their tongues!!! (they do eat animals!!!!)
4) the pointed edges of the venus-fly trap and sundew must have been....????
5) The tusks for elephants were simply for decoration and not for competeing and fighting with other elephants
6) the peacock's tail must not have been for attracting mates
7) the antlers for deers must not have been for fighting (that would have led to death!!)
8) The cheetah's speed was for naught but showing off
9)the flamingoes beak I guess was for filtering plants....and not krill...
10) the woodpeacker's beak must simply be for....producing a lovely sound?
11) In fact, every beak of every insect eating bird must have been rather silly for getting nectar
12) who knows what Emperor penguins ate!!?!?!? Given the sparse vegetation in the south pole
13) who knows what spiders ate, guess their webs are just for fun and energy wasting
14) The vultures...well, now, there's a interesting bird...guess all of the designs for smelling meat, digging into carcasses with their beaks....must be for something else
15) Guess the venom in snakes....well....?
16) guess the fangs to deliver the venom....
17) guess the constrictors are totally for...killing plants?
18) Not to mention alligators and crocs....guess that death roll was for the trees
19) the pirrahnas...? all those silly pointed teeth and crazy behavior....
20) and the myriad of parasites that infest and kill their hosts....guess they paracitized....fruit?

OR for that matter any herbivorous animal (webbed feet, flat molars, long teeth of beavers) you have now stated that observing basic body plans does not guaratee intended design....well if that's the case then anything is open for interpretation!!!


all of these, if we hold to "it's for something else, we can't make that conclusion about efficiency" then leads to either

1) we cannot draw *any* conclusions about the purpose of a structure and
2) all of these structures are merely the whim of a Creator....now I'm all for having God with a sense of whimsy, but I also find that God is a rational God who makes whimsical things that make sense. As well as us having the ability to make sense of them.
3) ALL of these had previous unfamiliar purposes

If these are great for you, fine...

but I don't hold to God being whimiscal at the expense of funciton or to "secret" functions thta are bizarrely hidden for a theology that is not necessary to the curse. (again, I don't believe that the curse didn't affect the creation just that it didn't necessarily introduce animal death)

Oh, and the population birth rates of multiudes of animals must have been *completely* different, since many animals over produce currently (sponges, jellyfish, turtles, fish) because their offspring have such a high death rate due to predation. Of course, that must have been for another reason!?!?! Or did the entire reproductive strategies change for these prey animals.
-

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:43 pm
by Gman
Image

Hmmm, looks like a carnivore to me.. I live in the Monterey bay here in California so I know a few things about sharks (I've even seen one two feet from me). We know that these teeth weren't made for eating kelp.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:55 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:but I don't hold to God being whimiscal at the expense of funciton or to "secret" functions thta are bizarrely hidden for a theology that is not necessary to the curse. (again, I don't believe that the curse didn't affect the creation just that it didn't necessarily introduce animal death)

Oh, and the population birth rates of multiudes of animals must have been *completely* different, since many animals over produce currently (sponges, jellyfish, turtles, fish) because their offspring have such a high death rate due to predation. Of course, that must have been for another reason!?!?! Or did the entire reproductive strategies change for these prey animals.
-
Interesting that God told the animals to multiply on the earth Genesis 1:21-22. So how could God curb overpopulation if the commandment was to multiply? There is a certain limit to how much the population the world can handle.. If Adam and Eve and their progeny had reproduced at the rate of just one child every four years, they could have produced as many as 17 billion offspring before their 900th anniversary...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:30 am
by Jac3510
Forgive me, but you haven't demonstrated it false with those skulls at all, all you have shown is that there are a few exceptions. Which one can do with any basic structure (wings, forinstnce) , and it doesn't negate the basic premise of the structure. I can say, "wow, look at the wings, they are perfectly suited to flight" you can point to me the ostrich and the rhea as to the exception and it doens't negate that birds that fly have wings.

You've given me an example of a fork which of course can be strained to show has multiple functions. You have tried to gve examples of where animals have multiple designs but have basically resorted to the "anything goes" approach to the design.

Of course structure can have multiple functions...for instance we do see herbivorous animals with sharp claws. we can use some basic intelligence; however, and put together a body plan that reveals a *total package*
No, I've not resorted to an "anything goes" approach. Clearly, "anything" doesn't go. Sharks don't have the apparatus to fly, so it'd be absurd to argue that they ever had that ability (shy of evidence, of course).

I'm making a much more narrow claim that you've not dealt with, which is a claim that comes out general philosophy and confirmed by the skulls I produced. It is this: you cannot claim certainty of intended purpose based only on structure!. In order to do so, you must claim omniscience. I don't have that gift. Do you?

How, then, can you know purpose? Well, notice a few things about the question. First, purpose assumes design, so by definition, by argument cannot be that anything goes, because if anything goes, then all meaning goes with it. Something that can mean anything actually means nothing. But I am talking about purpose here.

Second, notice the word "know." We must distinguish between the actual purpose of a thing and our knowledge of that purpose. Let's, again, look at Ariel's "hairbrush." She believed it had one purpose, but it actually had another. Thus, we cannot equate our beliefs concerning purpose (as Gman did with his posting of the great white) with the actual purpose.

Third, since purpose implies design, purpose requires a designer. Rock formations have structure. They don't have purpose. They don't have design. Their structure may create a certain environment, but unless that environment was intended (which requires and intender), we cannot say the rock's structure was designed at all. Thus, it follows that the purpose of a design comes from the designer.

What this means, zoe, is that you may get a clue about the purpose of a design from its structure, but the purpose is not found in the structure itself; it is found in the designer's mind. This is true of human design (Ariel's fork). It is true of the Divine Design (carnivorous animals). When you claim that the design (read: purpose) of sharp teeth (and other features) must be to kill, you are in precisely the same boat as Ariel when she declared the purpose of the fork was to brush hair.

There are, then, only TWO ways to know design:

1. To investigate structure and have an omniscient understanding of all its applications;
2. To ask the designer.

You can show me all the "finely tuned" killers you want. You can never meet the conditions of (1), and therefore you CANNOT LOGICALLY DEDUCE that carnivorous body-types imply carnivorous design. That is IRRATIONAL and a non-sequitur. The fact that there are exceptions to your proposed body-plan -> design only proves my point.

Can we, then, discover the design of animals based on (2)? I think yes. The Designer has told us their design in the Bible, which, I believe, precludes pre-Fall carnivorous activity.
Which, perhaps, I could maybe could buy if it weren't for the fact that creationists don't rely on this argument for the creation. usually the argument is more on the design element. Rarely do I here the creationist argue: "boy, we can't make any conclusions about *anything* in biology,since just becuase it looks like something doesn't make it so"....But you guys DON"T say that....every week on this one radio station I hear the creaiton moment and they wax poetic about the "efficiency and design" .
1. It doesn't matter if you buy it or not. The principle is logically unassailable. You may doubt its application here, but you cannot get around the FACT as presented.

2. You misunderstand "creationists'" argument for design. There are two senses in which to understand "design." The first has to do with purpose; the second has to do with adaptation, or fine tuning. Creationists talk about "design" in the second sense, primarily. Unfortunately, the ID crowd hasn't appreciated this distinction and melds the two. As a result, Darwinians, who implicitly see this distinction, even if they don't state it, reject your arguments as religious because of the implications of (1). Now, a YEC can talk about carnivorous activity being "designed" all they want and be perfectly appropriate both scientifically and theologically. Sharks, for instance, are highly adapted killing machines, and it is hard to see how such an adaptation could have happened naturalistically. Likewise, the bacterial flagellum, ATP generator, and other such cellular machines, show "design" in that they couldn't have come to function their systems as they do naturalistically. But even these arguments guarantee nothing about intended purpose, and it is the intended purpose of body-types on which you base your arguments of pre-Fall carnivorous activity.

3. Regardless of what "creationists" say, you are simply labeling again, which is simply guilt by association and a form of the genetic fallacy. In other words, just because creationists say stupid things is some areas doesn't mean that everyone associated with them, or anyone who uses any one of their arguments, or anyone who comes to the same conclusions they do, must also be wrong. Your job is to deal with the argument as presented. I really expect you to be able to do that, because you get on to atheists for doing it Christians all the time.
And secondly, it simply strains basic observational skills which god Himself has given us. What is simpler to conclude: That God has given us basic intelligence to observe and draw conclusions? That whenever we do see an instance of a top solely carnivorous animal we see some basic similarities and some very very uniques structure in these animals and draw the conclusion that these basic similarities and unique structures are there for the purpose of hunting.
Sure it's reasonable to conclude those things unless He has told you otherwise. We do this all the time in our every day lives. A man and his wife are arguing because he sees her walking across the street with another man. He assumes that she's cheating on him, to which she replies, "Why would you assume that? Did the thought not cross your mind that there could have been other explanations, and should not my character prevent you from making that conclusion?" Or again, a man is giving directions to a friend. He says, "Turn left at the second light; now, the road at that light is behind a large building, so it's easy to miss. But as soon as you see the light, go ahead and start turning, because the road will be right there."

You can think of other examples, but the point is the same. It is reasonable to come to conclusions based on the information that you have, but you have to consider ALL the information that you have. You can't bracket out biblical information and say "I can't consider this when coming to my conclusions." That is IRRATIONAL and a fundamentally atheistic approach to developing one's conclusions. Now, if God has told us that there was no death before the Fall, then we are being rational if we decide to take a second look at some observations. Thus, the question is what the text teaches and NOTHING MORE. This obsession OECers have with treating general revelation as the 67th book of the Bible is absurd. We are interested in the text and the text alone when talking about origins. Arguments from incredulity ("it simply strains basic observational skills . . .") are simply fallacious and have no place in a rational discussion.
that in *every* instance of our observing these structures, not only are these structures NOT originally designed for hunting, but they are, in fact, designed for some peaceful function. this second premise denies not only a VERY basic premise, that of structure and function, but a basic observational skills and validity of our observations. To say that any structure that I presented (the praying mantis, the shark, the eagle) in these animals are open to interpreation strips us of using the very brains God has given us. There are of course, exceptions to every rule. But for those animals that have canine teeth, the deer, we can SEE the other function!!! We can observe te male deer fighting with other deer. (which of course, is another *mean* aspect of God's creation....why hurt each other for the females...was this before the fall?)
You still aren't seeing my point. I never argued that structures that are now employed for carnivorous activity were once used for peaceful purposes or were even designed for them. I said that such structures could have been co-opted and used in non-intended purposes. A guitar, for instance, is designed to play music, but I can turn it over and use it as a table since the back is flat. Does that mean, though, that just because it can be used for that purpose that it was intended for it? No, nor does it mean that just because body types can be used for carnivorous activity that they were necessarily originally intended for peaceful purposes. They may not have been intended for anything at all besides mere aesthetics!

Secondly, notice that in the exceptions (that is, counter-examples to your now falsified argument) our ability to observe the primary purpose says nothing about what we once could not observe. Suppose in one hundred years all deer are extinct, and no one is around to observe them. Suppose by some odd miracle that all references to deer are removed from all scientific and historical references. An archaeologist comes along and digs up one of those skulls. Are we to fault him for concluding that the animal must have been carnivorous? If someone argued they were herbivores, by your standard, they would be mocked. Now, if said scientist could go back in time and observe the ACTUAL intention of those designs, he could come up with a proper interpretation of them. But this only proves my point about omniscience. Our observation of structures being employed relates to knowledge. Just because we can't think of a non-carnivorous way that such structures could be used (if they were used at all, in some cases)--precisely because we can no longer observe them in action--it does NOT follow that we can conclude they MUST have been originally intended for carnivorous activity unless you can go on to claim omniscience!

Finally, when we take biblical revelation into account, only then are we properly using our brains, because only then are we considering ALL the evidence. You may argue that it strips us of reason to not claim omniscience, but I claim that it strips Scripture of its authority if you insist that your finite and highly fallible interpretation of the world as it stands today must be the determining factor on what Scripture must mean.
To deny the validity of the relationship between structure and function calls into question pretty much every observation we have made from chemistry to physics to zoology.

If we cannot draw these very simply conclusions without questioning their validity then before the fall...
1) the pelican's beak must surely have held oodles of plants...
2) The flat molars of herbivores are called into question....why, since cats can eat cereal, do cows need flat molars?
3) the baleen teeth of whales must be totally off base, well, gee they may have been for cleaning their tongues!!! (they do eat animals!!!!)
4) the pointed edges of the venus-fly trap and sundew must have been....????
5) The tusks for elephants were simply for decoration and not for competeing and fighting with other elephants
6) the peacock's tail must not have been for attracting mates
7) the antlers for deers must not have been for fighting (that would have led to death!!)
8) The cheetah's speed was for naught but showing off
9)the flamingoes beak I guess was for filtering plants....and not krill...
10) the woodpeacker's beak must simply be for....producing a lovely sound?
11) In fact, every beak of every insect eating bird must have been rather silly for getting nectar
12) who knows what Emperor penguins ate!!?!?!? Given the sparse vegetation in the south pole
13) who knows what spiders ate, guess their webs are just for fun and energy wasting
14) The vultures...well, now, there's a interesting bird...guess all of the designs for smelling meat, digging into carcasses with their beaks....must be for something else
15) Guess the venom in snakes....well....?
16) guess the fangs to deliver the venom....
17) guess the constrictors are totally for...killing plants?
18) Not to mention alligators and crocs....guess that death roll was for the trees
19) the pirrahnas...? all those silly pointed teeth and crazy behavior....
20) and the myriad of parasites that infest and kill their hosts....guess they paracitized....fruit?
I've already distinguished between chemical and zoological design. Feel free to read my previous response for that. As far as all the others, you are again making the same basic two errors you consistently make:

1. You are asking me (and assuming for yourself) omniscience with regard to all potential purposes in all potential words;
2. You are confusing "intended design" for "adapted design" as discussed above.

For all your arguments, zoe, you are not responding to the logical point I am making. Until you refute THAT, I'll say the same thing I said in my previous reply:
I wrote:Let's just say I could not give explanations for each of your examples (which you could multiply indefinitely!): does it then follow that because I don't know an answer, there therefore is not one? Of course not. Again, put it in a basic syllogism:

1. Jac can't think of the answer to the question
2. ?
3. Therefore, there is no answer to the question

The only way to make this valid is to provide "Jac knows all the answers." In other words, your argument is loaded because it requires me to assume omniscience! Obviously, I'm not. What I CAN do, however, is offer counter-examples to your claim that carnivorous design is only good if it leads to carnivorous activity (which I've done repeatedly now).

For the record, I think I can give explanations for each of those, but I won't offer them on the principle I've discussed here. We need to keep the argument focused on the right thing, and the right thing is which principles are logically valid. I'm trying to show you that yours are not, and that your objections to mine are equally fallacious.
Your objection to this strictly logical point was an appeal to consequences ("but if that's true, we can't know anything about design!!!") which is logically fallacious and thus invalid and irrational. Even if I granted that consequences (which I don't, based on the distinction made above), the logic still has to be dealt with. You can't reject an argument because you don't like its consequences. Frankly, I'm fine with the consequence that the zoology of a Fallen world can't tell us anything about the intended design of an unfallen world. But, then again, I don't hold general revelation--and nature, in particular--to be very "revealing" with reference to original intent. For that, I go to the designer's manual (Scripture).

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:12 pm
by zoegirl
Well, we will probably never ee eye to eye here. I ceratinly don't disagree with you on principle...I can never know for certain and GOd is certainly withing HIs right to have done all you say. It is certainly not beyond His capabilities.

I am really not arguing from incredulity, but rather what makes more sense from what I know from God as a God of order and design. *YOu* may say all you want that there could be other purposes and strictly speaking, yes, there *could* be...I am saying that all of the order and beauty and sense in this world and it just doesn't fall in line with the God of scripture that all of these structures wou;dn't be in line with their uses today.

Just as with the age question, this is no amatter of whether He could do so, but whether He did. And so yes, I will concede to the absolute arument that I cannever be certain. I have no problem with that!

Essentially, when I go down my lists...you can say all you want that there could be other purposes (and again, perhaps ALL of those that I listed were for someoter purpose), but when you start saying that things changed after th fall, we come mightliy close to the other problem I listed....that God changed creation after He was *done*.

THought of a couple more predator questions:

1) The wiggly worm-like structure at the end of the tongues of some turtles to attract fish
2) The little light-bulb lure at the end of deep sea fish
3) the stingers on jellyfish
4) not to mention the poisons on sea anemones

kept on thinking about things and started to remember all of the prey adaptations:

1) Cryptic coloration (why the camouflage if nothing is after you? To surprise Adam and Eve?)
2) Warning coloraton (did they just look pretty and they weren't toxic?)
3) Porcupines?!?!?! (hmmm, I know God has a sense of humor but to needlessly cause pain?)
4) Skunks? (same)
5) Roly-Poly's (isopods...they roll up into a ball in defensive posture....why he behavor before the fall?)
6) Not to mention armadillos, or turtles, or echidnas
7)Of course...one wonders why plants need defenses like thorns, chemicals like poison ivy or caffeine...cyanide ayone? if plants werew given for food, wy make them with toxins?
8) poison dart frogs
9) bees/wasps
10) tent catrpillars...why make a tent to hide when...
11) GOod old plain hiding strategies...why hide when there is no one hunting you?
12) bombadier beetle....all fo the complicated mechansms to make the toxic spray?
13) toads that taste nasty (and while this may be funny to watch one's dog after tasting the frog...)
14) The kildeer's strategy to act like it's injured to lure the predator away from it' nest
15) the ink from squids
16) the fake death scenes of some snakes and opposums...now why create a behavior that mimics an occurence that doesn't take place?!!?!?![/b
]17) The fish that creates virtually a gallon of slime when picked up to escape...a predator...why this behavior

Now I can certainly have faith that God created different purposes for all of these, although it seems like the more we examine it the more that, even if we just look at behavior, GOd must have CHANGED CREATION after the fall, which seems to counter the idea that God was finished on the 6th day. If none of these animals displayed the colorations or the behavior before then God changed the behavior, ie the creation. If lions didnt hunt before,then their brains would hve had to be changed....

And let's examine all of the prey life strategies
1) Reproductive saturation...prey often have all of their young at the same time...this is to saturate the feeding of the predators...but withot the predators this would produce to many young with the resources...this was different?

2) herding and flocking behaviors where the members share in the responsibility to watc fr the predators...they have timed and recorded the number of members in the herd that pop their head up to watch and they share the predator load.

3) The watch calls of many animals for predators.

All of these structures or behaviors may have been for another purpose...if so, this goes back to my other issue that God has changed creation after He was finished on the 6th day. All of these wouldhave required some sort of behavioral change on the part of the predator or prey to their new "reactions"...a change in their responses and therefore brain chemistry. This would certainly be a change in the structures of the creation. OR that animals simply popped their heads up for no reason...or for aesthetics? ugh...unsatisfactory...(again, not saying impossible). Or that skunks willy-nlly skunked the aea around them?

I havent heard any scripture that absoltuely demands that there was no animal death. I don' dispute human death. I don't dispute that the fall affected the creation...I just don't feel that there is a necessity o believe animal death.




jac wrote:
zoegirl wrote: that in *every* instance of our observing these structures, not only are these structures NOT originally designed for hunting, but they are, in fact, designed for some peaceful function. this second premise denies not only a VERY basic premise, that of structure and function, but a basic observational skills and validity of our observations. To say that any structure that I presented (the praying mantis, the shark, the eagle) in these animals are open to interpreation strips us of using the very brains God has given us. There are of course, exceptions to every rule. But for those animals that have canine teeth, the deer, we can SEE the other function!!! We can observe te male deer fighting with other deer. (which of course, is another *mean* aspect of God's creation....why hurt each other for the females...was this before the fall?)


You still aren't seeing my point. I never argued that structures that are now employed for carnivorous activity were once used for peaceful purposes or were even designed for them. I said that such structures could have been co-opted and used in non-intended purposes. A guitar, for instance, is designed to play music, but I can turn it over and use it as a table since the back is flat. Does that mean, though, that just because it can be used for that purpose that it was intended for it? No, nor does it mean that just because body types can be used for carnivorous activity that they were necessarily originally intended for peaceful purposes. They may not have been intended for anything at all besides mere aesthetics!


I can just about see that for, maybe, one or two examples...But I see all of these animals and even plants that have structures that would seemingly have no purpose whatsoever (toxins?!?!?!? poisons??!? quills?) and to say that God made them just for aesthetics? NOw I don't doubt that GOd enjoys His creation and that He enjoyed the variety and even the whimsy of HIs creatures, but when I study the creation it seems that God is a God who enjoys the *essence* of what He has created.

Either they had different purposes or mere aesthetics...doesn't fit with the God of scripturetha I read. GOd would have made either wasteful and useless colelction of structures and He did so *immeasurably* with millions of animals and plants merely for aesthetics or He made ALL of them wit an entirely different purpos. THis is based on *one* way to interpet two sections of scripture. OR those two sections of scripture don't mean what you say they mean and God's creation fits.

And all this for what it seems is theology that can stll be true (why does there have to b animal death) other than the idea of a first sacrifice (which still holds true for God HImself killed an animal, not another animal doing what God created it to do) starting the requirement for bloodshed by man for the atoning sacrifice.

jac wrote: Secondly, notice that in the exceptions (that is, counter-examples to your now falsified argument) our ability to observe the primary purpose says nothing about what we once could not observe. Suppose in one hundred years all deer are extinct, and no one is around to observe them. Suppose by some odd miracle that all references to deer are removed from all scientific and historical references. An archaeologist comes along and digs up one of those skulls. Are we to fault him for concluding that the animal must have been carnivorous?


I would say so!! He/She would certianly have to strain th arguement when able to compare with the collection of other structural parts. W can cetainly look atthe rest of the teeth and see the bits of grass in them :P :esurprised: :wave:

teeth are certainly not the only measue of carnivory. Feet, jaw structure, eye sockets...thesecolelctively would point to ....maybe omnivory but certainly not carnivory...

But also suppose we can look at and compare what we know with current animals...we can certinaly make a pretty good prediction.

jac wrote: If someone argued they were herbivores, by your standard, they would be mocked. Now, if said scientist could go back in time and observe the ACTUAL intention of those designs, he could come up with a proper interpretation of them. But this only proves my point about omniscience. Our observation of structures being employed relates to knowledge. Just because we can't think of a non-carnivorous way that such structures could be used (if they were used at all, in some cases)--precisely because we can no longer observe them in action--it does NOT follow that we can conclude they MUST have been originally intended for carnivorous activity unless you can go on to claim omniscience!


Even supposing that GOd created all of these structures with another purpose, either peaceful OR totally simply for aesthetics, then...

Taken with the changes that would have certinly occurred in the behavior of the pedators and the prey (and even in some plants), GOd, then would have had to change the brain responses and therefore the brain structure, the brain chemistry and certainly therefore the genes of these anmals and plans and we are back to the problem that God CHANGED and ADDED to HIs creation due to the fall.

Finally, when we take biblical revelation into account, only then are we properly using our brains, because only then are we considering ALL the evidence. You may argue that it strips us of reason to not claim omniscience, but I claim that it strips Scripture of its authority if you insist that your finite and highly fallible interpretation of the world as it stands today must be the determining factor on what Scripture must mean.


I am not denying any scripture, I hold that it doestn' mean what you say it means. See above.

There are the verses about he plants for food (which seems silly to place cyanide and other txins or thorns in the plants) but that has been discussed elsewhere . (all food ultimately comes from the sun)

Just because God klled the animals for covering Adam and Even doe not mean that this had o be the first animal death. And I certtianly don't disagree with teh curse on the creation. I don't see where in the curse

genesis 3 wrote: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


where you can make any arguement other than the garments....certainly this ges to the first sacrifice. I don't disagree. I don't think we can stretch scripture to mean that there was no animal to animal death.

jac wrote:
zoegirl wrote: To deny the validity of the relationship between structure and function calls into question pretty much every observation we have made from chemistry to physics to zoology.

If we cannot draw these very simply conclusions without questioning their validity then before the fall...
1) the pelican's beak must surely have held oodles of plants...
2) The flat molars of herbivores are called into question....why, since cats can eat cereal, do cows need flat molars?
3) the baleen teeth of whales must be totally off base, well, gee they may have been for cleaning their tongues!!! (they do eat animals!!!!)
4) the pointed edges of the venus-fly trap and sundew must have been....????
5) The tusks for elephants were simply for decoration and not for competeing and fighting with other elephants
6) the peacock's tail must not have been for attracting mates
7) the antlers for deers must not have been for fighting (that would have led to death!!)
The cheetah's speed was for naught but showing off
9)the flamingoes beak I guess was for filtering plants....and not krill...
10) the woodpeacker's beak must simply be for....producing a lovely sound?
11) In fact, every beak of every insect eating bird must have been rather silly for getting nectar
12) who knows what Emperor penguins ate!!?!?!? Given the sparse vegetation in the south pole
13) who knows what spiders ate, guess their webs are just for fun and energy wasting
14) The vultures...well, now, there's a interesting bird...guess all of the designs for smelling meat, digging into carcasses with their beaks....must be for something else
15) Guess the venom in snakes....well....?
16) guess the fangs to deliver the venom....
17) guess the constrictors are totally for...killing plants?
18) Not to mention alligators and crocs....guess that death roll was for the trees
19) the pirrahnas...? all those silly pointed teeth and crazy behavior....
20) and the myriad of parasites that infest and kill their hosts....guess they paracitized....fruit?
I've already distinguished between chemical and zoological design. Feel free to read my previous response for that. As far as all the others, you are again making the same basic two errors you consistently make:


1. You are asking me (and assuming for yourself) omniscience with regard to all potential purposes in all potential words;
2. You are confusing "intended design" for "adapted design" as discussed above.

For all your arguments, zoe, you are not responding to the logical point I am making. Until you refute THAT, I'll say the same thing I said in my previous reply:

I wrote:
Let's just say I could not give explanations for each of your examples (which you could multiply indefinitely!): does it then follow that because I don't know an answer, there therefore is not one? Of course not. Again, put it in a basic syllogism:

1. Jac can't think of the answer to the question
2. ?
3. Therefore, there is no answer to the question

The only way to make this valid is to provide "Jac knows all the answers." In other words, your argument is loaded because it requires me to assume omniscience! Obviously, I'm not. What I CAN do, however, is offer counter-examples to your claim that carnivorous design is only good if it leads to carnivorous activity (which I've done repeatedly now).


No, I agree t you essentail point. Not dispting that to know, FOR CERTAIN, I would need omniscience. I never stated I knew for certain.

I have not disputed this, Jac,

OF COURSE GOD CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. To interpret that He did so based on an overly intepreted and needlessly applied iterpreation scripture is my concern.

Ihear you saying that God
1) made potetially millions of useless structures (mrerely for aesthetics..which He can certianly do so, but would the GOd of scrpture do this?)
2) changed creation after He delared it finished on the 6th day

jacj wrote: For the record, I think I can give explanations for each of those, but I won't offer them on the principle I've discussed here.


Actually I am nerested in this. Please provide all the alternative purposes for the predator AND prey...I would like to know. I certaily concede that I cannot know for certain. That was never my argument in th first place and you are asseritn that I did imply that. I certainly dont and didn't. I think we can make some pretty good observations. Ad I don;t these observations are useless. Especially for only two sections of scripture that don't have only one interpretation.

[quote="jac]
We need to keep the argument focused on the right thing, and the right thing is which principles are logically valid. I'm trying to show you that yours are not, and that your objections to mine are equally fallacious.
Your objection to this strictly logical point was an appeal to consequences ("but if that's true, we can't know anything about design!!!")


which is logically fallacious and thus invalid and irrational. Even if I granted that consequences (which I don't, based on the distinction made above), the logic still has to be dealt with. You can't reject an argument because you don't like its consequences.[/quote]

THat has never been my argument! My argument is not simply based on "i don't lke this"....it's "I don't think the GOd of scrpture and creation is the God you are painting" ...you are essentailly telling me that God is a God of useless strucutres (you insist that He could have made any and all of these fro pure aesthetics).

I can see LOGICALLY that all you say is true. ALL of these animals, both prey and predator could have had ALL fo thee structures before the fall and ave had altenate uses, either peaceful (ie, grooming, ?!?!) or neutral (it;s pretty). I am certainly no saying it's not possible. God could certianly have done this and I could never evere knwo until I get to ask Him personally.

Whoo-hoo, I agree with you that it is possible. I am not God and I don't know for certain. Let's move on Jac.

Whether or not something is POSSIBLE (God can make all of these critters to be annoyingly uless but amazingly pretty) does not make is likely or true. God can certainly make the universe in 6 sec or in 6 days, doens't mean He didso. Not omniscient about that either but we can look at scripture and His creation.

jac wrote: Frankly, I'm fine with the consequence that the zoology of a Fallen world can't tell us anything about the intended design of an unfallen world. But, then again, I don't hold general revelation--and nature, in particular--to be very "revealing" with reference to original intent.


Spoken from a non-biologist :P :ebiggrin: :wave: See I*do* see God revealed, at least His essence as a creator. It's why I love what i do. I look at His creation and I see purpose, I see fits, and order, and p[uzzle pieces coming together.

jac wrote: For that, I go to the designer's manual (Scripture).


For hiwch it seems that there are only two sections of verses that supprt this and they can be interpretedor applied differently without hurting the theology of atonement.

See, everytime I go here, I get basically that God didn't chagne anything, but HE would!! He would have had to change the brain chemistry, brain structure, or at the very least, the genes that awaken those parts of the brain. If ths isns't changing His creation then I don't knwo what you would define as changing th creation.

So God changed His creation after the fall...He changed the brains, the bahvior, and the gene expression of the animals and perhaps the plants.

Jac, I would greatl appreciate it you would try to explain wha you think the purposes of both the predator and prey structure and behaviors. If for no other reason than I have never had a satisfactory answer to all these.

THanks, by the way, and hopefully you;re not tking this in any oter way other than a debate. These are basics that do seem to strike at the difference between scientists and theologians perhaps. I have asked several of the Bible teachers and have provided, if not the exhausted list, certainly a few examples. But most of the responses show a woeful lasck of knowledge of the science or pat answers.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:35 am
by Jac3510
THanks, by the way, and hopefully you;re not tking this in any oter way other than a debate. These are basics that do seem to strike at the difference between scientists and theologians perhaps.
I'm not taking this any way other than good debate. Iron sharpens iron, right? And I do appreciate these types of conversations, because I think we know each other well enough that we can get to the important issues without endless qualifications, as you may have to do when talking with people you don't know.

You raise some very important points I want to address. I'll probably get to them tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Just wanted to say in the meantime that I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, and that I thoroughly enjoy discussing these issues with people whom I believe have a good grasp on the various positions.

:)

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:46 am
by Jac3510
Ok, zoe, where were we . . .

Rather than quote you, I want to boil your reply back down to this, and tell me if I missed something:

1. Yes, God COULD have done anything, but did what DID He do?
2. To argue that carnivorous body types, due to their apparently designed nature, are essentially different from their original purpose is inconsistent with the God of Scripture;
3. More examples of carnivorous-based-design

First, before I get into your examples in detail, let me say that I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this either, but I'm not debating to try to convince you. I'm debating this because I think the nuances of our various positions need to be hashed out so that, if nothing else, we, and those we talk to, can better understand these issues. The gross simplification that goes on by both sides of the other's position is sad. If things were as cut and dry as either side made it out to be, then there would only be one side! Intellectually honest and bright people can justifiably come to different positions, but at the same time, they should talk about their differences openly and candidly so that everyone can be better understood.

Turning, then, to (1): Regarding your "concession" to the argument I'm making (in quotation marks because that statement can have too strong of an implication--I don't think you are conceding to my entire argument so much as pointing out what you believe to be a trivially true statement), it's important that we make a strong distinction between the "God could have" argument here as opposed to the argument about the age of the earth. Clearly, God could have done anything He wanted in any context in any argument. I'm not arguing for something as trivial as that. The point I'm driving at is that your stated basis for believing in carnivorous activity before the Fall is insufficient. Let me demonstrate?

How do you know there was carnivorous activity before the Fall? Because an examination of the body types of carnivorous animals today shows that they were apparently designed for carnivorous activity; since God is the designer, it makes sense that God is the one who disigned them for carnivorous activity. Since He designed them before the Fall, we must conclude that they attended to their purpose before the Fall, namely, to practice predation as per their design. Thus, there must have been carnivorous activity before the Fall.

Now, if I've misunderstood your argument, please, by all means, let me know, but I believe this is a fair representation of your position. But notice that the entire argument is based on the purpose of the design. This argument mixes actual purpose with known purpose. Look at the words "shows that they were apparently designed" . . . to whom does it show that? To us! To our intellect. That carnivorous body types are used for predation is uncontested. The question is this:

Were they originally intended for predation?

You concede that they may not have been, because God can obviously do anything that He wants to do. But I'm not just making an argument of what is POSSIBLE and then shrugging shoulders and walking away. I'm trying to make another point entirely, namely, what is the method for answering that question??

If I was only arguing for skepticism based on God's omnipotence, I'd say that there is no way to know! But I'm not arguing for skepticism. I think the question can be answered. And the answer is that there are TWO ways intended purpose can be known, which I've already listed -- first, to ask the designer, and second, to have an exhaustive knowledge of all potential purposes. If you can do the second, you don't need to bother with the first. If you can't do the second, then you have to do the first. If you can't do either, then you are left with skepticism.

Can you do the second, then? Obviously not. By your own admission, you do not know all possible answers. You therefore CANNOT logically and rationally say that present function indicates past intent. It simply does not follow. It is a non-sequitur.

BUT - Just because you cannot deduce it logically does not mean you can not infer it logically. You may well ask me, "But if there is no reason to believe that the function is not the purpose, then why should I not believe that it is?" And on THAT mark, you are exactly right. If I don't present evidence, then your inference is valid. Of course, I believe I have evidence in the form of Scripture. This, zoe, is the argument I am making to you:

Any evidence I have that there was no carnivorous activity before the Fall cannot be refuted by examining the present function of carnivorous body types. To attempt to do so would be circular reasoning. If, then, you are basing your belief on carnivorous activity before the Fall on carnivorous body types and their functions, then you either

1) Have no seen the evidence against pre-Fall carnivorism; or you
2) Have seen the evidence and rejected it as insufficient.

In both cases, the issue is the evidence against the position. On that basis, it should be clear that no amount of carnivorous body types you present make any difference, because they all come AFTER the issue we are actually discussing.


Turning, then, to (2): You do believe you can deduce, rather than just infer, carnivorous activity before the Fall based on an appeal to the nature of God. Your argument would apparently go something like this.

1. It is inconsistent with God's character to fundamentally change nature at the Fall or allow nature to be fundamentally changed in such a way as to render modern functions incapable of telling us anything about the structures intended purpose, or more, to cause us to make false deductions about those structures.
2. There are structures today that clearly function in a carnivorous fashion;
3. Therefore, those structures must have functioned in a carnivorous fashion before the Fall.

Now, this is a valid argument, but I don't think it is sound. I simply don't believe (1) is true. Why should it be? (This actually appears to be a variation on Deem's argument against the "appearance of age" defense.) It is up to you to defend it. I just can't think of any reason to believe that it is actually true. You keep talking about things lining up with the God of Scripture, but based on what?

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen a man be resurrected? Is there anything in your, or anywhere in humanity's, experience that would lead you to believe that such is possible? The Greeks, to take one example, certainly didn't think it was. Thus, in the 5th century, Apollo says, "But when of murder'd man the dust hath once the blood suck'd up, he riseth never more."

Now - would not a person be rational in rejecting the resurrection of Christ? Such a thing would be totally out of line with history! It would be a miracle! And, shy of good evidence, we should always reject miracles. On what basis, then, does God condemn those who reject Jesus' resurrection? The answer, of course, is that God has provided a great deal of evidence to prove this is the case. In other words, He has said, "I know it looks this way, but here's evidence that it is not."

Thus, your deductive argument falls to precisely the same argument as your inductive one does: namely, my assertion that there is good evidence. For in truth, (1) as stated is false. To make it true, you would have to add the phrase, "without good reason for believing." And I think that there is good reason. So, AGAIN, appeal to modern structure has NO BEARING on the discussion. The discussion is ONLY about the Scriptural evidence.


Turning, then, to (3): I appreciate your interest in my potential answers, and maybe we'll get to them later. But I simply refuse to dive into that right now. It will take this debate far afield, and it will undermine my points above. That may make for interesting discussion, but it isn't relevant to the truth of my claim, nor should it be in any way relevant to how believable my case is or is not. To the extent that you base your belief or disbelief on this, you are, I'm sorry to say, just being illogical, for you are simply begging the question.


Here's the bottom line, zoe:

You cannot assert that your basis for believing in pre-Fall carnivorous activity is based on current functions of observed structures without begging the question. You must first weigh the Scriptural evidence against pre-Fall carnivorous activity and make your decision based on that. I am saying, then, that the basis of your position is wrong.

Now, I realize that you will say that you have examined the evidence and found it insufficient, which is fine. But when you debate this position with someone who believes it to be sufficient, it is logically fallacious to present current body-types as evidence for your position. Anything shy of discussions relating to the texts themselves are simply out of bounds for logical, not theological, reasons.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:29 pm
by dayage
The bottom line is, nowhere in the Bible is animal death attributed to Adam's sin.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:10 pm
by Jac3510
An argument from silence is a pretty weak bottom line.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:15 pm
by Canuckster1127
Jac3510 wrote:An argument from silence is a pretty weak bottom line.
An argument with no direct scriptural support isn't any stronger and in fact in the view of many, is weaker.

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:27 pm
by Jac3510
Just because you interpret supporting Scriptures differently doesn't mean there is no Scriptural evidence. That's the atheists' mistake when they say there is no evidence for God. If your problem is with someone's exegesis, fine, but don't be so patronizing as to say that there is no Scriptural support. By that standard, then there is no Scriptural support for anything, because you would first have to know what God meant before reading the text.

Logical fallacies, like arguments from silence, are weak. At least misinterpretations work with existing evidence. Please be more even-handed in your criticism, my friend.

edit:

Interesting, BTW, that this goes hand-in-hand with what I already said is the bottom line:
I wrote:You must first weigh the Scriptural evidence against pre-Fall carnivorous activity and make your decision based on that. I am saying, then, that the basis of your position is wrong.
The issue is the interpretation of several key passages, not arguments from silence or examination of modern body-types that only beg the question.