Rebuttal of supposed evidence for carnivores before the Fall

[Paul]

There was a thread some time back where someone posted a picture of a fish with very sharp teeth as evidence that there existed carnivores before the Fall and as evidence against the biblical view of creation. This argument-by-picture was of course a poor argument and to further illustrate why I'd like to cite an article about piranhas:

"There are different species of piranha [other than the red-bellied kind] that are actually vegetarian. Some of them have extremely robust teeth and large jaws, but they just eat fruits."

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=491512005

I am open to the possibility that some animals did eat other animals prior to the fall but I doubt that there was any kind of violent, viscious predation not in harmony with the peaceful creation God had created. Arguing that there was such predation based on the presence of piranha-like jaws is clearly a poor argument given that such jaws exist in some species of animals today which species are vegeterian.

[Darth Executor]

There was a thread some time back where someone posted a picture of a fish with very sharp teeth as evidence that there existed carnivores before the Fall and as evidence against the biblical view of creation. This argument-by-picture was of course a poor argument and to further illustrate why I'd like to cite an article about piranhas:

"There are different species of piranha [other than the red-bellied kind] that are actually vegetarian. Some of them have extremely robust teeth and large jaws, but they just eat fruits."

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=491512005

I am open to the possibility that some animals did eat other animals prior to the fall but I doubt that there was any kind of violent, viscious predation not in harmony with the peaceful creation God had created. Arguing that there was such predation based on the presence of piranha-like jaws is clearly a poor argument given that such jaws exist in some species of animals today which species are vegeterian.
I'm still trying to figure out why YECs claim there was no death among animals before the fall.

[A Cup of No]

I'm still trying to figure out why YECs claim there was no death among animals before the fall.

Because Adam introduced sin into the world which introduced death into the world. I think someone who's not YEC would respond by saying that Adam only brought death to men into the world, but I could be wrong.

[shunyadragon]

There was a thread some time back where someone posted a picture of a fish with very sharp teeth as evidence that there existed carnivores before the Fall and as evidence against the biblical view of creation. This argument-by-picture was of course a poor argument and to further illustrate why I'd like to cite an article about piranhas:

"There are different species of piranha [other than the red-bellied kind] that are actually vegetarian. Some of them have extremely robust teeth and large jaws, but they just eat fruits."

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=491512005

I am open to the possibility that some animals did eat other animals prior to the fall but I doubt that there was any kind of violent, viscious predation not in harmony with the peaceful creation God had created. Arguing that there was such predation based on the presence of piranha-like jaws is clearly a poor argument given that such jaws exist in some species of animals today which species are vegeterian.

Picking on one comment about one piece of evidence is not the way to address the issue. It is well known that many families of animals contain both preditors, omnivors and vegetatians. The evidence is not just based on the teeth. There are abundant fossil evidence for predation appearing to be just as brutal and violent as any today. The fosilized dung of carnivorous animal fossils contain abundent reminants of their victims. Ravaged egg nests have been found with the tracks and evidence of the guilty in stone. Many bones contain teeth marks and sometimes embedded teeth. There are some interesting fossil sites of mass killings like sometimes occurs today when packs of preditors atack. Fossil sharks are common in many marine formations, and these dudes did not eat seaweed. There are of course very non-violent non-preditors in the shark families, but the sharks commonly found in some formations are huge relatives of Great White Sharks and the remains indicate they ate everything including each other.


In China there are common very high quality fossils of fish inside fish, and for a switch a few preditor mammals with reptile reminants in their gut.

It is naive to think of predation as brutal or violent. Is very natural and universal in the fossil record.

[Darth Executor]

Because Adam introduced sin into the world which introduced death into the world. I think someone who's not YEC would respond by saying that Adam only brought death to men into the world, but I could be wrong.

But Genesis does not say that! It warns ONLY Adam and Eve that in the "day" they eat of the fruit they shall surely die. How does one manage to stick animal death into that?

[A Cup of No]

But Genesis does not say that! It warns ONLY Adam and Eve that in the "day" they eat of the fruit they shall surely die. How does one manage to stick animal death into that?

First, just want to let you know I'm not here to defend the YEC position. I'm just letting you know how I understand the position and it's the one I've been for a while, but I'm not too interested in that topic right now.

I know Genesis doesn't say it, but Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." I think YEC proponents will say that death entered the world through sin. Also the fact that creation was "very good." Animal predation and death couldn't be "very good."

Just my take on it and probably all I'll have to say in this thread 'cause I'm not here to defend YEC. :thumb: :teeth:

[Paul]

Picking on one comment about one piece of evidence is not the way to address the issue.

As best I recall, the whole post consisted of that one comment with an attached picture. This was probably in the Natural Sciences forum.


There are of course very non-violent non-preditors in the shark families, but the sharks commonly found in some formations are huge relatives of Great White Sharks and the remains indicate they ate everything including each other.

Prescinding from the question of whether these fossil formations are fossils of pre-Fall or post-Fall animals and the fact that you don't specify how the remains indicate such, you presuppose here that evolution is true by saying that the fish represented in these fossils are "relatives of Great White Sharks." When part of what is at issue is whether evolution is true, it does no good to pressupose it to argue for your side of the issue.


In China there are common very high quality fossils of fish inside fish, and for a switch a few preditor mammals with reptile reminants in their gut.

Are you speaking here of land mammals or water mammals?

Even assuming that there are fossils of fish inside fish, that does not mean that these are fish that were alive pre-fall. Also, even further assuming that these fish were alive pre-fall, that does not contradict the proposition that there was no violent. viscious predation pre-fall of the kind that would violate the peaceful harmony with which God endowed creation.


It is naive to think of predation as brutal or violent. Is very natural and universal in the fossil record.

I never said that an animal eating another animal was brutal and violent. In fact I stated that I was open to the possibility that some eating of other animals occurred pre-fall. What I am not so open to is the proposition that there was eating of other animals of the kind that is viscious and violent. Also what is natural and what happens among animals or plants today is not the same thing. What is natural is a theological or philosophical concept as it relates to natural law which is about the ends which various created natures and created persons have and as it relates to the natural versus supernatural. What is natural as it relates to classifying some sciences as natural sciences is a meta-natural scientific endeavor and is as such a question of the philosophy of natural science rather than a question of natural science itself. IOW, the determination of what is natural and what is not falls wholly outside of the domain of natural science in terms of what is natural in the moral sense, what is natural in the metaphysical sense of natural versus supernatural, and what is natural in the sense of what the nature of natural science is. If you want to say that something is "natural" in the sense of it having a propensity to occur among animals and plants, that's fine. But to conflate this with natural in the moral sense is fallacious. It would be like arguing that something is straight in the sense of physical alignment based on the fact that it is straight in the sense of being heterosexual. One does not follow from the other.

[kuboes1831]

As best I recall, the whole post consisted of that one comment with an attached picture. This was probably in the Natural Sciences forum.



Prescinding from the question of whether these fossil formations are fossils of pre-Fall or post-Fall animals and the fact that you don't specify how the remains indicate such, you presuppose here that evolution is true by saying that the fish represented in these fossils are "relatives of Great White Sharks." When part of what is at issue is whether evolution is true, it does no good to pressupose it to argue for your side of the issue.



Are you speaking here of land mammals or water mammals?

Even assuming that there are fossils of fish inside fish, that does not mean that these are fish that were alive pre-fall. Also, even further assuming that these fish were alive pre-fall, that does not contradict the proposition that there was no violent. viscious predation pre-fall of the kind that would violate the peaceful harmony with which God endowed creation.



I never said that an animal eating another animal was brutal and violent. In fact I stated that I was open to the possibility that some eating of other animals occurred pre-fall. What I am not so open to is the proposition that there was eating of other animals of the kind that is viscious and violent. Also what is natural and what happens among animals or plants today is not the same thing. What is natural is a theological or philosophical concept as it relates to natural law which is about the ends which various created natures and created persons have and as it relates to the natural versus supernatural. What is natural as it relates to classifying some sciences as natural sciences is a meta-natural scientific endeavor and is as such a question of the philosophy of natural science rather than a question of natural science itself. IOW, the determination of what is natural and what is not falls wholly outside of the domain of natural science in terms of what is natural in the moral sense, what is natural in the metaphysical sense of natural versus supernatural, and what is natural in the sense of what the nature of natural science is. If you want to say that something is "natural" in the sense of it having a propensity to occur among animals and plants, that's fine. But to conflate this with natural in the moral sense is fallacious. It would be like arguing that something is straight in the sense of physical alignment based on the fact that it is straight in the sense of being heterosexual. One does not follow from the other.

If you find a fossil how can you tell whether it is prefall or postfall?

[Darth Executor]

Earth pre fall was not perfect. If it was we wouldn't have fallen.

[A Cup of No]

Earth pre fall was not perfect. If it was we wouldn't have fallen.

Can you explain why you think so?

[Darth Executor]

Because Genesis says it was good. Good is not the same thing as perfect.

[A Cup of No]

I'm not asking this in an argumentative attitude, so don't take it that way. But how could God create something that's less than perfect? I'm not challenging your views on God's creative power.

[Darth Executor]

I'm not asking this in an argumentative attitude, so don't take it that way. But how could God create something that's less than perfect? I'm not challenging your views on God's creative power.

I'll never understand why people think that God HAS to make everything perfect. If something imperfect serves a purpose, God makes it. God made Satan. Is Satan perfect? Are we perfect?

[A Cup of No]

I'll never understand why people think that God HAS to make everything perfect. If something imperfect serves a purpose, God makes it. God made Satan. Is Satan perfect? Are we perfect?

I believe it would be against God's nature to create a being whose sole purpose is to deceive people. I believe that Satan was not created as he is, though I know this doesn't have too much biblical support. We aren't perfect, but are you saying that God created Adam flawed?

[Darth Executor]

I believe it would be against God's nature to create a being whose sole purpose is to deceive people.

Unless that being's deceit has a purpose. At any rate, I doubt Satan is going to stay this way forever. He will either figure out a way to be forgiven or God will destroy him.



I believe that Satan was not created as he is, though I know this doesn't have too much biblical support.

No, Satan was not created as he is. I was under the impression that he rebelled against God which is why he fell.


We aren't perfect, but are you saying that God created Adam flawed?

If we're not perfect then we're flawed. I think you answered your own question.

[A Cup of No]

Unless that being's deceit has a purpose. At any rate, I doubt Satan is going to stay this way forever. He will either figure out a way to be forgiven or God will destroy him.

I don't see the forgiveness part happening, unfortunately. I never understood why God would extend grace to humans but not fallen angels.


No, Satan was not created as he is. I was under the impression that he rebelled against God which is why he fell.

I like to think that too. You should read JP's thing on it here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/heylucy.html) , though.


If we're not perfect then we're flawed. I think you answered your own question.

I have trouble accepting the fact that God created Adam flawed. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but you think that because Adam sinned, it shows that God created Adam flawed? How does that follow?

[Darth Executor]

I don't see the forgiveness part happening, unfortunately. I never understood why God would extend grace to humans but not fallen angels.

I'm guessing His beef with Satan is different, not to mention none of our business so don't expect God to send us another book on the subject.




I like to think that too. You should read JP's thing on it here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/heylucy.html) , though.

Will do.




I have trouble accepting the fact that God created Adam flawed. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but you think that because Adam sinned, it shows that God created Adam flawed? How does that follow?

If Adam was flawless he wouldn't have sinned now would he? Free will without God's infinite power is flawed inherently.

[A Cup of No]

If Adam was flawless he wouldn't have sinned now would he? Free will without God's infinite power is flawed inherently.

I don't agree with that. God created Adam with a choice and Adam failed. His flaw was his wrong choice. Are you saying he couldn't help but make the choice? 'Cause that would truly mean being created with a flaw, but I don't see being created with the ability to make choices as flawed.

[Darth Executor]

I don't agree with that. God created Adam with a choice and Adam failed. His flaw was his wrong choice. Are you saying he couldn't help but make the choice? 'Cause that would truly mean being created with a flaw, but I don't see being created with the ability to make choices as flawed.

The ability to make choices is inherently flawed unless you are God. Law of chance my friend: given enough time and lacking infinite willpower and intelligence, the devil's gonna get you eventually. As it stands, I do not believe God "set Adam up" but rather suspect that the gift of the tree of knowledge would have been given to him eventually, when he was ready. All Adam and Eve had to do was wait. They didn't. Now it's your turn. Are you telling me that a creation that can be corrupted is perfect?

[A Cup of No]

The ability to make choices is inherently flawed unless you are God. Law of chance my friend: given enough time and lacking infinite willpower and intelligence, the devil's gonna get you eventually. As it stands, I do not believe God "set Adam up" but rather suspect that the gift of the tree of knowledge would have been given to him eventually, when he was ready. All Adam and Eve had to do was wait. They didn't. Now it's your turn. Are you telling me that a creation that can be corrupted is perfect?

I don't believe that the ability to make choices is flawed. Rather, I believe it brings about a certain value to the creation that is not there if the choice isn't there. I don't believe God wanted to create a species of drones who obeyed because He exerted power over their will to make them obey. Because of the ability to make choices, man could sustain creation's pristine status, or destroy it. In this way, God truly gave us dominion over Creation because it's perfection relied on us after he gave us the choice. Through the choices, there is value in the relationship between God and man. A creation that can be corrupted is perfect until it is corrupted. The fact that the creation could be corrupted showed that it was perfect. If it was just 'good' then wasn't it inherently corrupt because it wasn't perfect?

Btw, I'm enjoying this discussion. :thumb:

[shunyadragon]

As best I recall, the whole post consisted of that one comment with an attached picture. This was probably in the Natural Sciences forum.



Prescinding from the question of whether these fossil formations are fossils of pre-Fall or post-Fall animals and the fact that you don't specify how the remains indicate such, you presuppose here that evolution is true by saying that the fish represented in these fossils are "relatives of Great White Sharks." When part of what is at issue is whether evolution is true, it does no good to pressupose it to argue for your side of the issue.



Are you speaking here of land mammals or water mammals?

Even assuming that there are fossils of fish inside fish, that does not mean that these are fish that were alive pre-fall. Also, even further assuming that these fish were alive pre-fall, that does not contradict the proposition that there was no violent. viscious predation pre-fall of the kind that would violate the peaceful harmony with which God endowed creation.



I never said that an animal eating another animal was brutal and violent. In fact I stated that I was open to the possibility that some eating of other animals occurred pre-fall. What I am not so open to is the proposition that there was eating of other animals of the kind that is viscious and violent. Also what is natural and what happens among animals or plants today is not the same thing. What is natural is a theological or philosophical concept as it relates to natural law which is about the ends which various created natures and created persons have and as it relates to the natural versus supernatural. What is natural as it relates to classifying some sciences as natural sciences is a meta-natural scientific endeavor and is as such a question of the philosophy of natural science rather than a question of natural science itself. IOW, the determination of what is natural and what is not falls wholly outside of the domain of natural science in terms of what is natural in the moral sense, what is natural in the metaphysical sense of natural versus supernatural, and what is natural in the sense of what the nature of natural science is. If you want to say that something is "natural" in the sense of it having a propensity to occur among animals and plants, that's fine. But to conflate this with natural in the moral sense is fallacious. It would be like arguing that something is straight in the sense of physical alignment based on the fact that it is straight in the sense of being heterosexual. One does not follow from the other.

All the fossil formations show predation on a rather large and violent scale from the earliest known with diverse complex life forms.

How can you tell pre-flood or post flood?

[A Cup of No]

All the fossil formations show predation on a rather large and violent scale from the earliest known with diverse complex life forms.

How can you tell pre-flood or post flood?

You can't tell. Fossils don't come with tags that say "I am pre-fall" or "I am 234908234 years old." You'll decide based on your idea of whether or not there was animal death before the fall.

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe that the ability to make choices is flawed. Rather, I believe it brings about a certain value to the creation that is not there if the choice isn't there. I don't believe God wanted to create a species of drones who obeyed because He exerted power over their will to make them obey. Because of the ability to make choices, man could sustain creation's pristine status, or destroy it. In this way, God truly gave us dominion over Creation because it's perfection relied on us after he gave us the choice. Through the choices, there is value in the relationship between God and man.

I agree with everything so far.



A creation that can be corrupted is perfect until it is corrupted. The fact that the creation could be corrupted showed that it was perfect. If it was just 'good' then wasn't it inherently corrupt because it wasn't perfect?
Btw, I'm enjoying this discussion. :thumb:

No, it wasn't inherently corrupt. It was, however, flawed, as it was open to attack. Not to mention the fact that the bible itself did not call the creation perfect before the fall. If a creation can be corrupted, then it is not perfect since there is a weakness in its design that allows for corruption.

[A Cup of No]

No, it wasn't inherently corrupt. It was, however, flawed, as it was open to attack. Not to mention the fact that the bible itself did not call the creation perfect before the fall. If a creation can be corrupted, then it is not perfect since there is a weakness in its design that allows for corruption.

So would you say that Heaven was flawed, since Satan and the angels were allowed to rebel?

[Darth Executor]

So would you say that Heaven was flawed, since Satan and the angels were allowed to rebel?

Everything other than God is flawed.

[A Cup of No]

I still don't understand how the ability to be corrupted makes something less than perfect. God's creation was perfect and was corrupted through sin. God gave man dominion over the earth, and the first way that we failed was to introduce death into the world through sin. It's not God's fault or a lack of his ability to create something perfect, but rather a result of the free will He gave us so there would be value in the relationship and in the dominion of the earth.

You say everything other than God is flawed, and sure, that's true, because nothing else is God, but that's because of the very nature of God. But concerning His creation, why does vulnerability equal unperfection?

[Darth Executor]

I still don't understand how the ability to be corrupted makes something less than perfect.

Weakness is a flaw.



God's creation was perfect

No, it wasn't. Genesis calls it "good", not perfect.


and was corrupted through sin. God gave man dominion over the earth, and the first way that we failed was to introduce death into the world through sin. It's not God's fault or a lack of his ability to create something perfect, but rather a result of the free will He gave us so there would be value in the relationship and in the dominion of the earth.

It doesn't matter. Why does everything God makes HAVE to be perfect if imperfection serves a purpose? If God is perfect and the creation is perfect then is God the creation? Is the creation equal to God?


You say everything other than God is flawed, and sure, that's true, because nothing else is God, but that's because of the very nature of God. But concerning His creation, why does vulnerability equal unperfection?

By definition if there is something wrong with something then it is not perfect. There is something wrong with the creation: it is corruptable. Thus, it is not perfect.

[A Cup of No]

It doesn't matter. Why does everything God makes HAVE to be perfect if imperfection serves a purpose? If God is perfect and the creation is perfect then is God the creation? Is the creation equal to God?

It just seems God's nature to create things which are perfect because He is perfect. The creation is not equal to God because the creation is not God, but it does have one of His attributes: perfection.



By definition if there is something wrong with something then it is not perfect. There is something wrong with the creation: it is corruptable. Thus, it is not perfect.

Why is vulnerability wrong? God placed the creation under man's control, therefore it's perfection hinged on man's obedience. You still haven't shown why vulnerability is a flaw. You even agreed that for there to be value in the relationship between God and man, the ability to do wrong had to exist. If it is corruptible, then what's the standard it is being corrupted from? If it is just good, isn't it already corrupt from the start and not good, because it's not perfect?

Edit: I still want to check out the Hebrew for the "very good stuff", so give me time. :yes:

[Paul]

It seems to me that there are three kinds of perfection that can be discussed here:

1. Absolute perfection simpliciter.

This would be something that only God possesses as He alone is not only absolutely perfect in this or that way but in every single way.

2. Absolute perfection when it comes to this or that thing.

So for example those seeing God face to face, as He is, in heaven are absolutely perfect when it comes to their freedom as not only are they not slaves to sin but their wills are so perfected that this is not even a possibility for them. Once a man or angel is told, "Come and share in the joy of the master" there's not any possibility that he will leave it.

3. Perfection in the sense of not including anything bad even if it could be even better than it is now.

This strikes me as the state that God created the angels in. God didn't create them with anything bad but there were goods (such as seeing Him face to face) that He still had in store for the angels that were able to meet His test of justice and which would have been given to the angels that failed His test of justice had they not so failed.

This strikes me also as the state that God created the material creation in. When God spoke of it as good, He did not mean "It's good but it includes some bad things." Interpreting scripture that way strikes me as monstrous. Parts of the material creation could become even better (ex. men could one day see God face to face as He is rather tham mediated through a creature like a thundering voice or wind or what have you) and the material creation was destined as a whole to an even greater good (it's being transfigured as an even better new heaven and new earth), but none of it included anything bad.

[Darth Executor]

It just seems God's nature to create things which are perfect because He is perfect. The creation is not equal to God because the creation is not God, but it does have one of His attributes: perfection.

It seems God's nature? i don't think so. Got any scriptural reference that everything God makes is perfect?





Why is vulnerability wrong? God placed the creation under man's control, therefore it's perfection hinged on man's obedience. You still haven't shown why vulnerability is a flaw. You even agreed that for there to be value in the relationship between God and man, the ability to do wrong had to exist. If it is corruptible, then what's the standard it is being corrupted from? If it is just good, isn't it already corrupt from the start and not good, because it's not perfect?

UGH! Show why vulnerability is a flaw? That's common sense man! It's pretty much the exact same word! It's like asking me why an automobile is a car.


Edit: I still want to check out the Hebrew for the "very good stuff", so give me time. :yes:

I'll save you the trouble.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very3966 good.2896

3996:

me'ôd
meh-ode'
From the same as H181; properly vehemence, that is, (with or without preposition) vehemently; by implication wholly, speedily, etc. (often with other words as an intensive or superlative;

2896:

ṭôb
tobe
From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): - beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).

[Darth Executor]

It seems to me that there are three kinds of perfection that can be discussed here:

1. Absolute perfection simpliciter.

This would be something that only God possesses as He alone is not only absolutely perfect in this or that way but in every single way.

2. Absolute perfection when it comes to this or that thing.

So for example those seeing God face to face, as He is, in heaven are absolutely perfect when it comes to their freedom as not only are they not slaves to sin but their wills are so perfected that this is not even a possibility for them. Once a man or angel is told, "Come and share in the joy of the master" there's not any possibility that he will leave it.

3. Perfection in the sense of not including anything bad even if it could be even better than it is now.

This strikes me as the state that God created the angels in. God didn't create them with anything bad but there were goods (such as seeing Him face to face) that He still had in store for the angels that were able to meet His test of justice and which would have been given to the angels that failed His test of justice had they not so failed.

This strikes me also as the state that God created the material creation in. When God spoke of it as good, He did not mean "It's good but it includes some bad things." Interpreting scripture that way strikes me as monstrous. Parts of the material creation could become even better (ex. men could one day see God face to face as He is rather tham mediated through a creature like a thundering voice or wind or what have you) and the material creation was destined as a whole to an even greater good (it's being transfigured as an even better new heaven and new earth), but none of it included anything bad.


It wasn't bad. It was, however, flawed and it certainly was not perfect.

[A Cup of No]

It seems God's nature? i don't think so. Got any scriptural reference that everything God makes is perfect?

I'll get to it. I still can't understand why God would make a flawed creation, though.


UGH! Show why vulnerability is a flaw? That's common sense man! It's pretty much the exact same word! It's like asking me why an automobile is a car.

An automobile is a car because...

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Creation was placed under man's control. You agree with me that if there were no choice, there would be no value. Therefore God desired for man to express his love by obedience, so the tree was placed in the garden. This isn't a problem. The creation was not "less than perfect" becauee there were choices. If your parents give you a car, and say "If you do this and this and this, it'll stay in perfect condition, I'm testing your responsibility" and you go ram it into a tree, you can't say "The car wasn't perfect 'cause look at what happened." There was no flaw because the ability for corruption was there. Because there was an ability for corruption shows that it is perfect, because if it were less than perfect, just "good" how you say, then it is already corrupt. The ability for corruption is not a flaw because this situation involves the value of the relationship between God, man, and the creation over which man was given dominion.


I'll save you the trouble.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very3966 good.2896

3996:

me'ôd
meh-ode'
From the same as H181; properly vehemence, that is, (with or without preposition) vehemently; by implication wholly, speedily, etc. (often with other words as an intensive or superlative;

2896:

ṭôb
tobe
From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): - beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).\

Thank you. :thumb:

I think that both of our points remain unproven, but you're probably presenting and defending your case better than I am. You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

[Darth Executor]

I'll get to it. I still can't understand why God would make a flawed creation, though.

You said why yourself in your next section.




An automobile is a car because...

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Creation was placed under man's control. You agree with me that if there were no choice, there would be no value. Therefore God desired for man to express his love by obedience, so the tree was placed in the garden. This isn't a problem. The creation was not "less than perfect" becauee there were choices. If your parents give you a car, and say "If you do this and this and this, it'll stay in perfect condition, I'm testing your responsibility" and you go ram it into a tree, you can't say "The car wasn't perfect 'cause look at what happened." There was no flaw because the ability for corruption was there. Because there was an ability for corruption shows that it is perfect, because if it were less than perfect, just "good" how you say, then it is already corrupt. The ability for corruption is not a flaw because this situation involves the value of the relationship between God, man, and the creation over which man was given dominion.

The car analogy is bad because the parents didn't make me because there certainly was a flaw in me. My point is that a flaw makes something less than perfect and free will is a flaw in man because it leaves us open to attack. YOu are right that I do not think that a PERFECT human being would be of much value. In fact, a perfect creation would simply add another member to the trinity which in the end means nothing because no matter how much you add to infinity it will still be infinity. The fact that the ability for corruption has a benefit that outweights the negative does not make it flawless. Sorry. For something to be flawless, having the good outweight the evil isn't enough. It needs all good and no evil.



I think that both of our points remain unproven, but you're probably presenting and defending your case better than I am.

No, your point remains unproven because the Bible doesn't say the creation was perfect, but rather says that it was "very good". ;)


You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

It's not automatically a flaw, so I don't know why I would prove it.

[A Cup of No]

The car analogy is bad because the parents didn't make me because there certainly was a flaw in me. My point is that a flaw makes something less than perfect and free will is a flaw in man because it leaves us open to attack. YOu are right that I do not think that a PERFECT human being would be of much value. In fact, a perfect creation would simply add another member to the trinity which in the end means nothing because no matter how much you add to infinity it will still be infinity. The fact that the ability for corruption has a benefit that outweights the negative does not make it flawless. Sorry. For something to be flawless, having the good outweight the evil isn't enough. It needs all good and no evil.

So I guess it was a flawed analogy? :lol: Anyway, I don't think a perfect creation would add members to the Trinity, because no human will ever be God, that's just silly. There is more to being God than being sinless. I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. You say that free will is a flaw in man, and then a little further down..




You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

It's not automatically a flaw, so I don't know why I would prove it.

....you say it's not automaticall a flaw. What's the difference between the ability to make choices and free will?

We're disagreeing on whether free will is a flaw or not. Or maybe you're disagreeing with yourself on whether free will is a flaw or not. :poke:

Concerning the use of the word "perfect" in the Creation story, why would it be necessary to say "And God said, PERF!" Wouldn't the people have naturally understood that God's creation is always perfect? I do concede that this is an assumption on my part and my weakest point, so thrash away. :teeth:

[Paul]

It wasn't bad. It was, however, flawed and it certainly was not perfect.

So according to you, being flawed is a good thing?:huh:

[shunyadragon]

You can't tell. Fossils don't come with tags that say "I am pre-fall" or "I am 234908234 years old." You'll decide based on your idea of whether or not there was animal death before the fall.

Exactly, since fossils in all formations show predation in the food chain as it is today your argument is highly flawed.

I will remind you that the nature of the teeth is only one of many ways to determine the diet of the species.

[Paul]

Exactly, since fossils in all formations show predation in the food chain as it is today your argument is highly flawed.

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

[A Cup of No]

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

Don't understand how'd you be speaking for me?

I think it's plausible that God created the animals with all their post-fall functions intact and ready, since He knew that Adam would fail in the garden. But I dunno. I'm not a scientist or a geologist or whatever. I think my participation in this thread is mostly done, but it was a good chat. :thumb: Thanks for all the ideas guys, see ya.

[Darth Executor]

So I guess it was a flawed analogy? :lol: Anyway, I don't think a perfect creation would add members to the Trinity, because no human will ever be God, that's just silly. There is more to being God than being sinless. I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. You say that free will is a flaw in man, and then a little further down..

How am I contradicting myself? And a perfect creation would need to be another God which by His nature would simply add another member to the Trinity.





....you say it's not automaticall a flaw. What's the difference between the ability to make choices and free will?

I say it's not automatically a flaw because it's not a flaw in God's case. With His infinite powers He can benefit from the good without ever falling into sin.


We're disagreeing on whether free will is a flaw or not. Or maybe you're disagreeing with yourself on whether free will is a flaw or not. :poke:

Not really, see above.


Concerning the use of the word "perfect" in the Creation story, why would it be necessary to say "And God said, PERF!" Wouldn't the people have naturally understood that God's creation is always perfect? I do concede that this is an assumption on my part and my weakest point, so thrash away. :teeth:

God didn't have to say anything. The fact that He said it was very good rather than perfect means it was not perfect.

[Darth Executor]

So according to you, being flawed is a good thing?:huh:

No, that's not what I said. I said the creation wasn't bad despite having a flaw. Would you consider your mom bad if she scratched her face?

[shunyadragon]

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

What kind of predation of 'a certain kind' are you referring to?

Since all formations with diverse life show predation in the same 'as you say violent nature or manner' as predation today.

[Paul]

What kind of predation of 'a certain kind' are you referring to?

Since all formations with diverse life show predation in the same 'as you say violent nature or manner' as predation today.

I specified the kind in the OP.

Some forms of predation that go on today are not in a violent and viscious manner. Some forms of hunting for example.

[Paul]

No, that's not what I said. I said the creation wasn't bad despite having a flaw. Would you consider your mom bad if she scratched her face?

If my mom scratched her face the scratch would be a bad thing though it wouldn't make her morally bad.

Did creation have any bad aspects? You say that it had flaws? Flaws are bad. I'm not asking about whether the thing that posseses the flaw is wholly and completely bad or bad in this or that sense, but whether the flaw itself is bad in some sense or other. Unless you want to say that being flawed is a good thing, you can't avoid saying that creation had some bad aspects to it.

[Darth Executor]

If my mom scratched her face the scratch would be a bad thing though it wouldn't make her morally bad.

Did creation have any bad aspects? You say that it had flaws? Flaws are bad. I'm not asking about whether the thing that posseses the flaw is wholly and completely bad or bad in this or that sense, but whether the flaw itself is bad in some sense or other. Unless you want to say that being flawed is a good thing, you can't avoid saying that creation had some bad aspects to it.

I'm not saying creation didn't have bad aspects to it. But you said I implied the creation is bad which I didn't.

[shunyadragon]

I specified the kind in the OP.

Some forms of predation that go on today are not in a violent and viscious manner. Some forms of hunting for example.

No, you failed to define the type of predation that you considered 'a certain kind', you just simply said that the predation is different, and pre-flood predation lacked the violent predition of post-flood. I gave examples throughout the fossil record such as preditors raiding nests, and many examples of predation in the fossil record very much like happens today. There are examples in the fossil record of what was obviously a rather violent conflict between prey and victim, and on several occasions the record shows both died.

Stating that predation today may not be viscious and cruel does not help your case. Predation in terms of the victim is not nice in any manner. Hunting and trapping can be just as viscious to the victim and cruel to the victim as a lion killing an antilope. In nature predation is primarily balenced and in harmony in the past and present. In hunting and trapping today it is often the case that the killing serves no real purpose, but sport. Modern extinctions of animals due to hunting and trapping would be considered cruel and vicious.

[Paul]

No, you failed to define the type of predation that you considered 'a certain kind', you just simply said that the predation is different, and pre-flood predation lacked the violent predition of post-flood. I gave examples throughout the fossil record such as preditors raiding nests, and many examples of predation in the fossil record very much like happens today. There are examples in the fossil record of what was obviously a rather violent conflict between prey and victim, and on several occasions the record shows both died.

Stating that predation today may not be viscious and cruel does not help your case. Predation in terms of the victim is not nice in any manner. Hunting and trapping can be just as viscious to the victim and cruel to the victim as a lion killing an antilope. In nature predation is primarily balenced and in harmony in the past and present. In hunting and trapping today it is often the case that the killing serves no real purpose, but sport. Modern extinctions of animals due to hunting and trapping would be considered cruel and vicious.

Let me give a specific example.

If a man hunts with a tranquilizer dart, it's not violent and viscious as opposed to a lion tearing the head of its prey off which is violent and viscious.

[Paul]

I'm not saying creation didn't have bad aspects to it. But you said I implied the creation is bad which I didn't.

By saying that creation has bad aspects to it you ARE saying that creation is bad in certain respects even if it is not completely or wholly bad. God doesn't create anything that is bad in any respect.

[Darth Executor]

By saying that creation has bad aspects to it you ARE saying that creation is bad in certain respects even if it is not completely or wholly bad. God doesn't create anything that is bad in any respect.

So are you denying the fact that the Bible calls the creation "very good" which does not equal perfect and thus means God did create it with a bad aspect(s)?

[Paul]

So are you denying the fact that the Bible calls the creation "very good" which does not equal perfect and thus means God did create it with a bad aspect(s)?

I'm not denying that the God created creation very good. I'm denying that God created it with any bad aspects or with imperfections in the sense I already explicated earlier in this thread (three senses of the word perfect)

[shunyadragon]

Let me give a specific example.

If a man hunts with a tranquilizer dart, it's not violent and viscious as opposed to a lion tearing the head of its prey off which is violent and viscious.

I do not consider the lion's action as violent or visious. The lions actions are very natural and the fossil eveince indicates this behavior throughout the fosil record.

It depends on what the human does with the animal after he shots it with a tranqualizer dart that would determine if his actions were violent or vicious. Hunters usually do not use tranqualizer guns.

[Paul]

I do not consider the lion's action as violent or visious. The lions actions are very natural and the fossil eveince indicates this behavior throughout the fosil record.

In what sense do you mean "natural"? Do you simply mean that it has an inherent propensity to do it? If so that tells nothing about whether it is natural in the moral sense, in the sense of conformity with the natural law (animals don't have any moral character or moral life to them anyway). It also tells us nothing about whether it is natural in the sense of whether it was the way things were originally intended by God. Your argument is basically along the lines of "It happens; therefore it is OK." To be more fair it present it in the best possible light as one of two arguments:

1. If something happens ubiquitously, it is OK.
2. Lions tearing heads off happens ubiquitously.
3. Therefore, lions tearing heads off is OK.

But (1) is a false principle as can be demonstrated:

1'. If something happens ubiqutously, it is OK
2'. Hunger happens ubiquitously.
3'. Therefore, hunger is OK.

Maybe you think hunger IS OK. Then let's use this demonstration:

1'' If something happens ubiquitously, it is OK.
2'' Lying happens ubiquitously.
3'' Therefore, lying is OK.

Lying is clearly not OK. So we can see that (1) is a false principle.

But perhaps your argument is more refined and it goes like this:

A If something has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
B Lions have an inherent propensity to tear off heads.
C Therefore, it is OK for lions to tear off heads.

But A is also a false principle as can be demonstrated thusly:

A If something has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
B Kleptomaniacs have an inherent propensity to steal.
C Therefore, it is OK for kleptomaniacs to steal.

When clearly stealing is not OK for kleptomaniacs. Perhaps you would say that the principle you are using is an even more refined one and that your argument is like this:

1. If something due to genetics has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
2. Lions due to genetics have an inherent propensity to tear off heads.
3. Therefore, it is OK for lions to tear off heads.

But that can be demonstrated to be false also. Most people believe that due to genetics some men have an inherent propensity to become addicted to alcohol.

1. If something due to genetics has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
2. Those men with certain genes have an inherent propensity, due to genetics, to become addicted to alcohol.
3. Therefore it is OK for these men to become addicted to alcohol.

But clearly becoming addicted to alcohol is not OK. Perhaps you could refine the argument even further? You could, but it would continue to fail. I'll stop here.


It depends on what the human does with the animal after he shots it with a tranqualizer dart that would determine if his actions were violent or vicious. Hunters usually do not use tranqualizer guns.

OK, how frequent it is not important. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference with an example.

[shunyadragon]

In what sense do you mean "natural"? Do you simply mean that it has an inherent propensity to do it? If so that tells nothing about whether it is natural in the moral sense, in the sense of conformity with the natural law (animals don't have any moral character or moral life to them anyway). It also tells us nothing about whether it is natural in the sense of whether it was the way things were originally intended by God. Your argument is basically along the lines of "It happens; therefore it is OK." To be more fair it present it in the best possible light as one of two arguments:

1. If something happens ubiquitously, it is OK.
2. Lions tearing heads off happens ubiquitously.
3. Therefore, lions tearing heads off is OK.

But (1) is a false principle as can be demonstrated:

1'. If something happens ubiqutously, it is OK
2'. Hunger happens ubiquitously.
3'. Therefore, hunger is OK.

Maybe you think hunger IS OK. Then let's use this demonstration:

1'' If something happens ubiquitously, it is OK.
2'' Lying happens ubiquitously.
3'' Therefore, lying is OK.

Lying is clearly not OK. So we can see that (1) is a false principle.

But perhaps your argument is more refined and it goes like this:

A If something has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
B Lions have an inherent propensity to tear off heads.
C Therefore, it is OK for lions to tear off heads.

But A is also a false principle as can be demonstrated thusly:

A If something has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
B Kleptomaniacs have an inherent propensity to steal.
C Therefore, it is OK for kleptomaniacs to steal.

When clearly stealing is not OK for kleptomaniacs. Perhaps you would say that the principle you are using is an even more refined one and that your argument is like this:

1. If something due to genetics has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
2. Lions due to genetics have an inherent propensity to tear off heads.
3. Therefore, it is OK for lions to tear off heads.

But that can be demonstrated to be false also. Most people believe that due to genetics some men have an inherent propensity to become addicted to alcohol.

1. If something due to genetics has an inherent propensity to happen, it is OK.
2. Those men with certain genes have an inherent propensity, due to genetics, to become addicted to alcohol.
3. Therefore it is OK for these men to become addicted to alcohol.

But clearly becoming addicted to alcohol is not OK. Perhaps you could refine the argument even further? You could, but it would continue to fail. I'll stop here.

It would be better if you presented your argument better in the light of the overall knowledge we have of the history of animal and human behavior. The above examples in 'logic?' fail to address the point that based on all available knowledge we have, predation of the violent and bloody kind is universal. I do not take the moral stand that anything is 'okay or not okay', 'right or wrong' in the way natural predation is a part of the natural food chain of all life. I am
saying that it is well documented that animals ripe each other appart in bloody combat for survival throughout all known earth history. There are no exception in the evidence that a period of time existed when this was not true.


OK, how frequent it is not important. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference with an example.

I am basically responding to your OP on what has been violent and vicious predation over time as is known by our current knowledge of the history and nature of life on earth. The above example is poor and not relavent. I am still waiting for your criteria on what is the 'difference in kind' of predation in nature in some hypothetical pre-flood and a post-flood period, and what is the evidence of this difference.

[malcalexx]

Watch a video of wolves snatching a moose calf from its mother and then tearing it to pieces as it hollers in agony and terror. Watch a video of hyenas herding a young calf out of an antelope herd and begin eating it alive. Then tell be that God saw this suffering and terror and behold, it was very good.

[shunyadragon]

Watch a video of wolves snatching a moose calf from its mother and then tearing it to pieces as it hollers in agony and terror. Watch a video of hyenas herding a young calf out of an antelope herd and begin eating it alive. Then tell be that God saw this suffering and terror and behold, it was very good.

Humans in history have hunted no less brutally than the wolves as you describe above. IF God exists (I believe God does exist), God created the physical existence and life as we naturally observe it. I consider the the natural relationship between prey and predator a very natural consequence of creation, and nothing more.