Why couldn’t it have been both? I’ve never understood the controversy. Look a today’s animals. The lion is a predator but has been known to scavenge. The hyena is a scavenger but has been known to kill. How many of our carnivores aren’t opportunistic – other than snakes?
It's pretty simple and easy to understand. There is the world's system, and the Bible system.
Both are faith-based systems.
Either by death came man (the world's system), or by man came death (God's system as reported in the Bible).
Carnivores live by death of another moving creature. Herbivores do not.
According to the Bible, until Noah's flood, all moving creatures were herbivores, but the world's system rejects this concept.
The world's system and God's system are incompatible.
That's the controversy.
Your choice.
Sorry, I misunderstood your point. Yes, the paleologists pushed their conclusions way beyond their evidence, As you say, it could have been both. But it also could have been neither. Unless one has observed the species in its habitat for a long time, proposing mutually exclusive solutions seems senseless. Humans eat Limburger cheese and ramps (smelly wild leeks). What does that prove?