Skip to comments.The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals
Posted on 02/20/2009 8:19:51 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals
by Robert J. M. Gurney
All evolutionists and virtually all old-earth creationists believe that animals were killing and eating one another for millions of years, long before the Fall of man. Young-earth creationists argue that this is incompatible with Scripture. Old-earthers dispute the young-earthers interpretation of Scripture and employ at least two other counterarguments. One is that carnivorous behaviour is actually very good, and the other is that animals in the wild do not suffer. There is very good reason to believe that they do suffer; but even if they do not, carnivorous activity before the Fall remains incompatible with Scripture...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Clarity? I’m glad you enjoyed it though.
Why, thank you!
So the Dinosaurs were originally like mainly vegetarian eastern Asian immigrants to the U.S. who are rather short, but their children who eat meat here in the U.S. grow to the size of most Americans.
The Dinosaurs originally ate vegetables and were only say, raptor-sized, but after the Garden of Eden they started eating each other and grew to the size of buses.
I get it. Now its soooo much clearer.
I fail to understand how the people who concoct these anti-evolutionary theories SERIOUSLY fail to consider how much this stuff discredits serious Christians and Christianity?
Christianity and the Bible are about faith, morality, the fall of man, the promise of redemption, the fulfillment of that redemption, a future last judgement and a new world.
It is NOT a scientific text. It never was meant to be.
Yet these people CONTINUALLY come up with preposterous stories like human fossil footprints found next to dinosaur tracks, refuse to acknowledge the geological record, ignore biochemistry and genetics, and CONTINUE to equate belief in evolution with Biblical heresy. I just don’t get it. Maybe having read about Galileo and the Inquisition and the geocentric theory of astromony and the reactions of some orthodox clergymen to those situations doesn’t register with them.
Well, Christianity survived the Church saying the Bible infers earth was the center of the world so I guess it can survive people who believe Dinosaurs walked with Adam and ate plants until after the fall of man.
There’s actually a real and rather sad reason.
The idea comes from a notion that, I think, originated in the 1800’s that the Bible had to be literally “true” in every word or it (and, specifically, Jesus) “lied” meaning there was nothing to believe in at all. Many honest and sincere Christians take it as an article of faith, and I never argue with them.
Some, that I consider troublemakers and possibly not really Christians, will dishonestly misrepresent the science in order to bolster their own weak faith, or just to be difficult. Generally I ignore them.
I think you play a game with yourself. That is, “Of the 12 dumb articles I post on FR every day, I will try to outdo the stupidity of the stupidest one from yesterday.”
From this one: “In todays fallen world, carnivores eat other animals. But Gods original creation was perfect; man and all the animals were herbivores.”
Score one for GGG.
Well, actually, I believe all of it is “true” but that doesn’t mean that a literal interpretation of everything said needs to be taken literally. A lot of allegory and symbolism there which is in essence “true” if you don’t get wrapped up in the minutia.
But thanks for that explanation. It makes sense. So does your advice.
Fossil history of the Great White Shark:
As in any intellectual pursuit, reconstruction of evolutionary pathways can be tainted by inherent biases of the researchers. One of the most revealing examples of this tendency is provided by the fossil White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias and its relatives. Widely perceived as the ne plus ultra of sharkdom, the modern Great White has long been assumed to be the grandest, most polished revision of lamnoid evolution.
The White Shark is a member of the family Lamnidae, which includes three genera: Carcharodon, Isurus, and Lamna. In Oligocene deposits about 30 million years old, teeth have been found that are very similar to those of the White Shark but lack the serrations that characterize the genus Carcharodon. Since the extant mako sharks of the genus Isurus have teeth that are always smooth-edged, these fossils have traditionally been classified as Isurus hastalis. Miocene deposits, about 23 million years old, in Italy have yielded very similar teeth, but with faint serrations near the tip of the blade. These teeth were classified as Isurus escheri, and were regarded as ‘proof’ that the modern saw-toothed great white evolved gradually from smooth-toothed mako sharks of the genus Isurus.
But nature is often subtler than human ideas about how it ‘works’. Paleoichthyologist Henri Cappetta, one of the most distinguished researchers on fossil sharks, noticed that fossil teeth of ‘Isurus’ hastalis are very similar to those of the modern White Shark. In fact, Cappetta has remarked that the two are so similar that fossil Carcharodon carcharias teeth in which the serrations have been abraded away by geological activity are virtually impossible to differentiate from specimens of hastalis. In 1995, paleoichthyologist Mikael Siverson began to question the assignment of hastalis to the genus Isurus. Based on striking similarities between the root shape and overall structure of the tooth blade, Siverson now believes that hastalis and escheri are not makos at all, but direct ancestors of the modern White Shark. Siverson has therefore suggested that they should be re-assigned to the genus Cosmopolitodus. This view has also been adopted by paleontologist David Ward and seems to be gaining acceptance in at least some paleontological and fossil collecting circles.
The assumption that saw-toothed Carcharodon evolved from smooth-toothed Isurus is based on the idea that the appearance of serrations coincides with the origin of the genus Carcharodon. But it’s relatively easy to serrate a tooth, as shown by many clearly separate shark lineages which have independently evolved serrated teeth. A newer interpretation of the lamnoid fossil record holds that the Carcharodon lineage was originally smooth-toothed and is actually older than that of Isurus. According to this scenario, the Carcharodon lineage can be traced back to the smooth-toothed Isurolamna inflata, which lived about 65 to 55 million years ago. I. inflata gave rise to Macrorhizodus praecursor, which lived about 55 million years ago and had smooth edged but broader teeth than its ancestor. Praecursor gave rise to Cosmopolitodus hastalis, which lived about 35 million years ago and developed even braoder teeth. Hastalis, in turn, gave rise to Cosmopolitodus escheri, which lived about 25 to 20 million years ago and had weak serrations on its teeth. And finally, escheri gave rise to the modern White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, which appeared some 11 million years ago and had the coarsely serrated teeth for which the genus is renowned today. Therefore, Carcharodon and Isurus both descended from Isurolamna inflata and many smooth-edged fossil teeth originally named Isurus are in fact part of the Carcharodon lineage.
Possible evolutionary sequence of the modern White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)
Morphological studies of modern lamnids by systematist Leonard J.V. Compagno and others provide another source of evidence useful for tracing the group’s evolutionary history. Such studies not only support that Isurus derived from Carcharodon, but also suggest that Carcharodon derived from Lamna. Intriguing new evidence from molecular genetics fully supports this evolutionary hypothesis. It is not yet clear from the fossil record which lamnoid was the common ancestor of Lamna, Carcharodon, and Isurus. Some paleontological circles suspect the best candidate may be Isurolamna inflata or a similar as-yet undiscovered species. Other circles favor a species called Cretolamna appendiculata, known from fossil teeth dating from the late Cretaceous to the mid-Paleocene (about 100 to 60 million years ago). The teeth of Cretolamna are much more solidly built than those of any modern lamnid. But Cretolamna teeth resemble those of Lamna in being smooth-edged with well-developed basal cusplets (small secondary cusps on either side of the main blade). In addition to being a possible ancestor of the mighty great white, Cretolamna almost certainly gave rise to one of the most fearsome predators the ocean has ever produced, the giant-toothed shark known as Megalodon. (Courtesy of http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/carcharodon.htm)
I read Moby Dick a few months ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. A great book despite the fact that everyone who had read it told me it was incredibly boring.
“From this one: In todays fallen world, carnivores eat other animals. But Gods original creation was perfect; man and all the animals were herbivores”
It is kind of like a merger of bible literalism and PETA.
Maybe, before the fall, the big, toothy dinos sort of nibbled on the cute salad eating dinos without causing that much damage or pain. /s ;-)
Obviously Ken Ham and all those other creationists have backed off due to death threats.
The important question is what Kent Hovind thinks.
And why do famous creationists have initials KH?
Marie2, I encourage you to read John Morris’ ICR article for yourself, and you will find that Mr Joke is lying as he always does as to the meaning of the article.
Morris cautions readers only due to the constantly changing river bed, and the varying quality of the remaining evidence.
"Kicking Heinies" of ignorant evo promotors. ;o)