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 ...
This is my biggest bugaboo with those that state that
evolution is compatible with creation.
The first thing that God observed wasn’t “good” was that Man was alone.
Mutation, disease, death & predation amongst His other creations is “good”?
Genesis also specifically states that plants were the food for every creature.
Young earthers and old earthers arguing the equivelant of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With about the same relevance.
Ahh - so T. Rexes ate salads before the Fall of Man. Those dagger-teeth were just for show. Then they started eating critters until they were drowned in the Flood.
The thing about eating veggies changes in Genesis. Prior to the flood there appeared to be some sort of an antediluvian peace during which everybody ate veggies. After the flood God tells Noah and his descendants that they can kill and eat animals. That would also correspond with the end of man’s ability to communicate with the other animals.
Midrashim describes a handful of leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood. But that’s all they were; the true main age of dinosaurs would have been a few thousand or tens of thousands of years back. In particular there is no way humans could ever have lived around raptors without automatic weapons.
Yet, He was the one who put man there by himself.
Don’t cloud fantasy with LOGIC and FACTS!!!! It will get you FLAMED!!!
Using the Bible to interpret biological evolution is like using a law book to perform brain surgery. Neither one has anything to do with the other.
I’ve posed this question to the folks at AIG, and they said there was no definitive answer as to whether animals preyed on each other between the Fall and post-Flood.
Genesis specifically states that Man can now eat meat after the Flood (and not before), and that (to make it fair, I suppose), animals would now fear Man.
Geez, every dummy knows that! It's 72, isn't it? Or am I confusing that with something else?????
Maybe the T. Rexes ate Spam. That isn’t really meat, after all.
Consider all this; and then turn to this green, gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange analogy to something in yourself? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but encompassed by all the horrors of the half known life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return!
Nature is a bloodbath. Those who have never pushed off from that insular Tahiti are peaceful and joyful in the ignorance of this. Those who have can never return.
Depends on the definition of angel. And dance. And pin. Once you nail those down you have the question of timing. ;^)
FWIW, the entire cat family, and a good many others, are obligate carnivores. That means they must have the concentrated nutrition in meat, as their digestive tracts are too short to effectively digest anything else. Many other “carnivores,” such as humans, bears and dogs, are really omnivores, as they can survive just fine without meat.
Fairly often today’s nutso vegans try to convert their kitty, which usually results in Fluffy starving to death.
“This is my biggest bugaboo with those that state that evolution is compatible with creation.”
Yep, they are not compatible, even if Genesis is allegory, the whole premise the Bible assumes is nature is in need of redemption.
Nothing has teeth like the carnosaurs had for eating apples and oranges. Like I said, the dinosaurs walking around prior to the flood were leftovers and likely did not include any of the dangerous kinds. It seems likely to me that there was an age of dinosaurs which was a fang/claw sort of age, followed by the antediluvian period described in Genesis during which meat was not eaten, followed by what you read after the flood.
I don’t think it’s equivalent at all. The Bible clearly says some stuff about humanity, creation, and the fall. If that stuff isn’t true, the Bible isn’t true.
I’m not just talking about the definition of “day”. I’m talking about the origin of death and suffering and the need of a Holy Sacrifice to cure death. The Humanist/quasi-Christian hybrid called “Old Earth” has a problem when it comes to the origins of death and suffering.
Um, my comment was meant as ridicule. Don’t take it seriously as I don’t intend to enter into any sort of discussion relating to this ridiculous topic.
"I think I'll have the Spinach Salad with Bleu Cheese crumbles, thank you."
Thanks for the ping!
Also note, death, we are told, entered when Adam fell. Obviously this did not happen in the evolutionist view of things, where things were dying by the billions long before Adam came into being.
Thus, evolutionary thought lifts the curse! And without a curse, who needs a Savior?
Please note human next to dino footprints at the Paluxy River Bed.
"Hold the roast duck, just bring me the mango salsa..."
I spent many hours of my life wading through that stream of consciousness called Moby Dick. With only 3 chapters left, I put it down saying, “there’s nothing that could happen in three chapters that would make reading any further worth my while.”
“raised from the dead.”
That’s certainly isn’t science. It must be allegory.
about 2 years ago I read an article “Death to the Commentaries”, or was it ‘Commentators’? Consider it.
Commentaries have indeed created many confusing doctrines; and false ideas have entered into the understanding of the Scriptures.
Read and study the scriptures for yourself; and the Holy Spirit will teach you.
The church has changed during my lifetime; and when it is considered the times since Jesus walked on earth ... the changes have been many. We know that for sure from history itself. It is almost as if we believe the commentators/commentaries more than the scriptures.
Do not be mislead.
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God; and he that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; it shall be given to him.” James 1:5
We were born for Jesus to heal us.
So you just came into the thread to inform us how silly we all are? So essentially, you’re above all this and proclaiming this is equal to that, not allowing or accepting that this is not equal to that.
Think of me as the peanut gallery. Knock yourself out talking about it. It’s irrelevant to me but if it’s important to you don’t mind me. I’ll just watch.
These people need to go get a job. In this day and age, aren’t there more serious things to worry about.
Wow! I thought I was a pretty big jerk but you get the prize. You’re probably one of the few Freepers, whom I have contentious disagreement, who I’d actually dislike if I met face to face.
Reading through this thread, I’m getting a serious craving for a t-bone steak, rare, and some ribs.
That's probably the point.
As well as those who have the viewpoint that man is basically good, or that other religions provide another way to God through works, etc. All have the logical result that Jesus wasn't necessary.
You mean like tigers ate straw and ate pumas pinecones, stuff like that
Yep, that there’s as crazy as someone believing that the universe was created in 6 days with a spoken word of a transcendent Creator.
And that He came to His creation as a human and suffered and died for us.
And as crazy as people rising from the dead or suddenly seeing after being born blind.
Crazy, crazy stuff.
You don’t get it.
Since their teeth couldn’t cut up the veggies right, they didn’t grow so big. That’s also how they fit on the ark.
“Suffering” is a subjective term.
In order to “suffer” one must have human consciousness. Everything els is merely animal stimulous response.
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.