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.

[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.