Rebuttal of supposed evidence for carnivores before the Fall

[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.