"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
And this puts us back on topic, thanks B.W.B. W. wrote:Let's not forget who God was speaking too when he told who would die if they ate off the forbidden tree and God was not speaking to animals was he?
-
-
-
Of course not. I wasn't responding to the argument that there was not animal death; I was responding to Byblos' implication (as I understood it) that physical death may not have been the penalty for Adam's sin; a suggestion he put forward in response to Narnia's question.zoe wrote:HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part
What do you think this animal eats?I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:
IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:
1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .
Under YEC views, God created the entire universe in six days. He changed the body of the serpent so that it no longer had legs. I don't suspect God would have had any problems making the adaptations necessary to introduce carnivorous activity, especially if some designs could be easily tweaked for that purpose (see above).2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them
You are going to have a problem with Gen. 1:22, then. Even post-fall, God had to do something to get mankind out of the garden so that he could not eat from the Tree of Life, or else he would have lived forever. You also have Jesus eating (which implies the breaking down of all kinds of things!), and yet, His glorified bodies will never die, nor will ours.Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.
Fundamentally, no, it didn't have to be. In fact, it could not have been fundamentally different and still be considered the same thing. What had to change was not the fundamentals, but various aspects within creation that affected how various parts interacted with one another. Teeth that were once used for tearing wood from branches are now used for tearing flesh from bone. Digestion tracks that were once used for breaking down silt is now used to break down flesh. Some changes would be deeper than others, but I don't see any reason to recoil at any of them at all. They seem, rather, perfectly plausible.IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.
As already said, I assume you'll agree that the panda's teeth and claws aren't bad design. Thus, you'll concede that such structures do not necessarily imply carnivorous purposes, even if they allow for it. This principle was rather humorously demonstrated in The Little Mermaid when Ariel picks up a fork and begins brushing her hair with it. She had no clue it coudl be used for anything else! In other words, don't fall into the modern trap of thinking that structure necessarily determines function; certainly structure is related to it, but unless you are omniscient, you can't guarantee that the intended function for any given structure is that which you think best fits it. In fact, I'll give you one last skull to really prove the point:I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2
); granted, OECers reject any connection with Gen 1, arguing that the end is not a restoration of things, but I wonder how much of that is just because that's a necessary consequence of OEC. That's one of the main reasons I never could fully embrace the position, because eschatology of Isaiah seems to look back to Eden as much as it does forward the the Millennium. Now, if that reading of Isaiah is correct, then we have yet more evidence for a lack of carnivorous activity before the Fall.There's hope for both of us yet, Byblos! Iron sharpens iron, eh?Byblos wrote:Jac,
I was referring to the quoted passage only but I can always count on you to keep my theology in check (and hopefully I yours). But it gives me great pleasure to see you quote material from my church and agree with it. There's hope for you after all my friend.
As for the subject of physical death as a penalty for sin, at heart I do agree with it but this little nagging theistic evolutionist in me keeps creeping up. I'm working on it though.
What animals sinned during the Flood, and yet, how many were destroyed? And did was God speaking to the ground or even the garden when He told Adam not to eat of the fruit, and yet, the ground was expressly cursed because of that sin (3:17).B.W. wrote:Let's not forget who God was speaking too when he told who would die if they ate off the forbidden tree and God was not speaking to animals was he?
My apologies, I responded too quickly to this...thanks for clearing this up[/quote]Jac3510 wrote:Of course not. I wasn't responding to the argument that there was not animal death; I was responding to Byblos' implication (as I understood it) that physical death may not have been the penalty for Adam's sin; a suggestion he put forward in response to Narnia's question.zoe wrote:HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part
jac wrote:What do you think this animal eats?I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:
IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:
1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .
Looks pretty scary, huh? Big teeth . . . must be designed for tearing at flesh, eh? Or take a look at its claws:
Those claws are really powerful--very sharp. They are strong enough to scar tree trunks, and easily powerful enough to tear flesh from bone.
Why would a panda need all that? If we didn't observe them today, we'd doubtlessly think that they were carnivorous animals if we had only their bones to go by. But is that bad design? Of course not. They eat bamboo, so they need sharp teeth and powerful claws to get at their food. All I'm saying is that such carnivorous design doesn't necessarily require carnivorous intent.
Some more example, just to prove the point:
Fruit bat skull
Muntjac skull
Heterodontosaurus skull
I could keep going--we could look at the skulls and teeth of omnivores (think, for instance, of dog skulls) and still other sharp-toothed herbivores--but the point is clear, I think. Just because an animal has sharp teeth, binocular vision, etc., doesn't mean it has to be designed for predatory activity.
By and large, you are giving me exceptions to the rule, whereas I can go to a plethora of websites and textbooks (secular and creationionist) that outline pretty basic body plans. The canines of those that you have mentioned, like thepanda and the fruit bat, do use them in their diet, for the plants/fruit skins.//www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=1286 wrote:Canine teeth, the larger teeth near the front of the mouth, are something we associate with dogs and are found in many kinds of mammals. In those deer that lack antlers, the upper canine teeth are enlarged and sharp, and are clearly used as display mechanisms to scare away less dominant animals. In more drastic use, these canine teeth are used to fight fairly wicked battles. The deer of North America, in contrast, lack upper canine teeth. In white tailed deer, only the male deer (the buck) bears antlers, which grow ever-larger as the animal matures. These bucks use the antlers to intimidate smaller bucks, or during the rutting season will use the antlers to fight with other bucks. Thus, the antlers of our deer and the canine teeth of the Chinese water deer have relatively similar functions in male against male competition during the breeding season. Some biologists question the inclusion of the water deer (and the other genus and species of "deer" that lack upper canine teeth) in the deer family. But, other features of the animal including anatomy and genetics have argued for the retention of these animals within the Cervidae. That could be the topic of another commentary. Our antlered "deer" include white-tailed deer in the eastern United States, and mule deer which are primarily western. Additionally, the deer include elk, caribou and moose. Some of these are found throughout the world in the northern hemisphere. The Chinese water deer is found in the Yangtze River region of China. These deer are rather small, weighing only about 20-25 pounds. But, given the tusk-like nature of their canines, let's be glad for their small size. Males square off against rival males and attack by swinging their heads and teeth against their opponents neck and chest. The battles can and often do result in injuries
I *dont'* hve a problem with it....The issue still remian, however, what the worldwas like pre-fall, not in our glorified bodies.jac wrote:Under YEC views, God created the entire universe in six days. He changed the body of the serpent so that it no longer had legs. I don't suspect God would have had any problems making the adaptations necessary to introduce carnivorous activity, especially if some designs could be easily tweaked for that purpose (see above).2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them
You are going to have a problem with Gen. 1:22, then. Even post-fall, God had to do something to get mankind out of the garden so that he could not eat from the Tree of Life, or else he would have lived forever. You also have Jesus eating (which implies the breaking down of all kinds of things!), and yet, His glorified bodies will never die, nor will ours.Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.
So do you suppose that He made the shark (a solely carnivorous animal) with the capability to kill? How did He create it and then feed it....andstill renew Biological life? Ae you saying that He would have provided the fish and then brought the fish back to life?It appears, then, that God is more than capable of sustaining life forever. If He can bring Lazarus back from the dead and heal the blind and the sick, I don't think He had any troubles renewing biological life, do you?
I'm sorry but I view this as a very unsatisfactory answer. A very typical answer but veryunsatisfactory...You (a general you) can't say that, in one turn,God's creation wonderfully desgined and then point me out a shark, a lion, or an eagle , a hawk, a praying mantis, all of the spiders, snakes? and tell me that these creatures did not use their "wonderful design" for eating plants....THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNSUITED TO EAT PLANTS.jac wrote:Fundamentally, no, it didn't have to be. In fact, it could not have been fundamentally different and still be considered the same thing. What had to change was not the fundamentals, but various aspects within creation that affected how various parts interacted with one another. Teeth that were once used for tearing wood from branches are now used for tearing flesh from bone. Digestion tracks that were once used for breaking down silt is now used to break down flesh. Some changes would be deeper than others, but I don't see any reason to recoil at any of them at all. They seem, rather, perfectly plausible.IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.
Again, you are using exceptions to try to prove a rule. Try to argue againstthe examples I gave (spider, snake, praying mantis, eagle, shark).As already said, I assume you'll agree that the panda's teeth and claws aren't bad design. Thus, you'll concede that such structures do not necessarily imply carnivorous purposes, even if they allow for it.I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2
Jac, Structure and Function is a fundmental foundation upon which al biological systems are built. Enzymes, Molecules, atoms BEHAVE the way they do because of their structure. I'm sorry but the verse you are using may be good in showing the* future* but it in no way applies to the past. YOureally suppose that a shark was vegetarian prefall? A snake? An eagle? a praying mantis? A corspe beetle? Shoot, even FUNGI are decomposers. When in JOb God BOASTS of these beasts. Would God BOAST of a beast doing something it wasn't suppoed to be doing?!?!?!?This principle was rather humorously demonstrated in The Little Mermaid when Ariel picks up a fork and begins brushing her hair with it. She had no clue it coudl be used for anything else! In other words, don't fall into the modern trap of thinking that structure necessarily determines function; certainly structure is related to it, but unless you are omniscient, you can't guarantee that the intended function for any given structure is that which you think best fits it. In fact, I'll give you one last skull to really prove the point:
Here's a lion's skull. This clearly is designed to eat meat, right? But what does Isaiah say? "The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." (11:7) "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD." (65:25) Does this mean that the lion's body, then, is bad design? Of course not. Structures can have multiple uses, and the primary purpose actually might not be what you expect.
Now, when that is realized, the second point becomes much easier to see, as wholesale changes are not essential (although, even if they were, they are not impossible); and the evidence for the second? You can't argue that there is none without begging the question. YEC theology expressly states that the world is different now than it used to be. To argue that there is no evidence just assumes the very thing that the YEC/OEC people are debating!
As for evidence that it was the case? Narnia's question, I think, was a rather good one. And besides that, you still have the statement in 1:30 that can easily be taken to mean that animals were originally vegetarian, a position I've defended both in this thread and the one on hermeneutics. Finally, you have the general eschatological picture at the end of lions laying down with lambs (maybe bad design again?!?
jac wrote:I realize that the idea of creation falling with man is not a popular theology with OEC, but I'd submit that it is not popular because it violates the presumptions of OEC and no other reason. We could use still another example. God wasn't speaking to the animals in Gen 9, and yet God instilled in them there a great fear of human beings (I wonder how that fits in with modern science? What would a secular scientist think of the proposition that before Mesopotamian Flood described in Genesis 6-9 that animals had no fear of humans. Probably not much). So, it is evident that just because God does not address animals it does not follow that they do not share in judgment on humanity.
A final point on this: even if we reject the "restoration" theology of the Second Advent, the argument that animals don't suffer under and/or aren't affected by humanity's relationship with the world
CAn I ask you somehting, Jac? what makes this verse an actual picure instead of metaphorical (jsut curious).is still falsified by eschatology. For it is evident that carnivorous activity will cease when Christ returns and death will be finally conquered.
Of course there is no eviene that designed changed with the fall whch implies thatGod made a bad design with the sharks, the snakes, the spiders, the eagle.....But there is no evidence that the design of these animals will change (which speaks against zoe's argument against design, as well as her argument of fundamental change);
no debate herebut my point to you is this: it is when man is fully restored to God and when Christ sets up His rule, and when sin is no more--that is, when the glory of mankind is fully revealed--that the animals will take part in the great glorification of earth. Thus, if the animal kingdom will come under such blessing as a result of our exaltation, it follows that the animal kingdom, and indeed the rest of nature, is, in fact, capable of being--and will be--subjected to blessing and curses based on our relationship with God.
Typical YEC arguments. If this works for you that's great. Show me then how they cn change a shark, an eagle, a praying mantis, a spider, a snake, fungi.... this again this stresses the silliness of uilding an animal with such a design that would eat cereal. Why would He build a praying mantis with such speed....to catch fruit? Gee, those hard to catch fruit certaily requires fast forelimbs. Why would He build a shark with rows upon rows of teeth if it was going to simply eat plants? Or wth the reflexes to respond to prey?edit:
To all: see the following brief article for a very interesting discussion on how easily carnivorous animals can be (and have been!) made into complete herbivores:
//www.rae.org/catlover.html
Of course I'm giving you exceptions. Put your argument in a syllogism, zoe:But even omnivores have different designs. Pandas hav different behaviors, different diestive systems.
For the deer (muntjac) notice the antlers, they are smalle than deer with antlers.
By and large, you are giving me exceptions to the rule, whereas I can go to a plethora of websites and textbooks (secular and creationionist) that outline pretty basic body plans. The canines of those that you have mentioned, like thepanda and the fruit bat, do use them in their diet, for the plants/fruit skins.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/736059.stm
But it is not just the teeth: true carnivores haevery different digestive systems, different brains, different energetics, different bacterial growth in their intestines and certainly different behaviors.
Forgive me, I'm assuming that you recognize that humans did not die prior to the Fall. This thread is about animal death, but human death is important here, too. If you are going to insist that humans died, too, then I point you to my response to Byblos on that above, and then will dismiss OEC as simply absurd and silly--no more and no less--for the lengths you have to go to defend your position.I *dont'* hve a problem with it....The issue still remian, however, what the worldwas like pre-fall, not in our glorified bodies.
Question begging. You are assuming the shark was originally carnivorous, and thus, that the body design must have been for carnivorous purposes. What makes the body plan carnivorous in the first place? Because it is effecient in killing and eating meat? Fine, but I've already demonstrated that doesn't follow logically. Remember Ariel's fork?So do you suppose that He made the shark (a solely carnivorous animal) with the capability to kill? How did He create it and then feed it....andstill renew Biological life? Ae you saying that He would have provided the fish and then brought the fish back to life?
Then again, why make a carnivorous body plan?
If I understood the argument like you're presenting it, I'd call it unsatisfactory, too. Who says that the eagle was designed to kill?I'm sorry but I view this as a very unsatisfactory answer. A very typical answer but veryunsatisfactory...You (a general you) can't say that, in one turn,God's creation wonderfully desgined and then point me out a shark, a lion, or an eagle , a hawk, a praying mantis, all of the spiders, snakes? and tell me that these creatures did not use their "wonderful design" for eating plants....THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNSUITED TO EAT PLANTS.
THe eagle , with its talons? sharp beak? sharp vision? its speed in diving? IT would have no use for these if it were just meant to eat berries or fruit. If I were to take this to any zoologist and make this claim they would about near laugh themselvs silly. Ever hear of the phrase perfectly designed killer?
In fact, when I google this, I find articles that furiously try to explain this away from typical YEC sites. It is *such* a basic premise in simple biol;ogical observation, that it *has* to be explained because it is so compelling. If, in fact, someone told me that God created these creatures in such a way, I would be hard pressed to find creationism any more rational than evolution. Using this rational (that GOd created body plans that are perfectly suited to huntingbut they are not hunters) it hardly seems fair to criticize evoltuinary models whereby animals have parts no that they don't use.
You're doing the same thing atheists do when they ask about a particular moral evil: "How could God allow THAT one, huh?!?" What is important is not the example, it's the principle, and the principle is, again:Again, you are using exceptions to try to prove a rule. Try to argue againstthe examples I gave (spider, snake, praying mantis, eagle, shark).
Let's examine your first sentence here, zoe:Jac, Structure and Function is a fundmental foundation upon which al biological systems are built. Enzymes, Molecules, atoms BEHAVE the way they do because of their structure. I'm sorry but the verse you are using may be good in showing the* future* but it in no way applies to the past. YOureally suppose that a shark was vegetarian prefall? A snake? An eagle? a praying mantis? A corspe beetle? Shoot, even FUNGI are decomposers. When in JOb God BOASTS of these beasts. Would God BOAST of a beast doing something it wasn't suppoed to be doing?!?!?!?
See above. The question is, "Design for what." Just because the design works for predation does not mean that it is only, or even primarily, for the purpose of predation. And until you can demonstrate omniscience, you can't fulfill the syllogism I offered above validly.All of this is fine IF we stop throwing around "good design". I believe that God is a God of good design, of good engineering. TO tell me that God created the carnivores with the overall predator design without the predator mandate is stretching His creation more than it needs to be stretched.
You know better than that, zoe. Just because someone makes one wrong claim doesn't mean other claims were wrong, too. If so, you may as well quit being a Christian, because Christians have claimed all kinds of wrong things in the past. This, then, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation and serves only to attempt to put YECs in a "stupid" camp who make "stupid" claims and thus associate the present claim with the same level of "stupidity." Intentional or not, that's precisely the effect.Jac , I actually don't dispute that the creation fell with the curse....I dipute what that means on a mechanistic level. YEC have claimed all sorts of things with the curse (I even remember hearing that this is where the earth tilted on its axis, leading to the seasons and "death") with regards to creation. I have no doubts that something happened relationally and even perhaps physically. I disagree to what the "physically" means.
C.S. Lewis paints a very interesting portrait in Perelandra of the relationship between the dragon and the human, it was different, no fear.
You can't accept it and maintain OEC, zoe. If the new heavens and new earth of Isa 66 restores the conditions of Eden before Gen. 3, and if the conditions of Isa 66 mean no animal death, then the conditions of pre-fallen Eden must also include no animal death.I certainly don't reject this. I think the fll did affect our raltinahip to animals. Whether *their* relatinship to each oter was affected I don't think we can draw any solidconclusions.
It's repeated twice, neither time with any explanation, and both times strongly painting the picture of a deathless new world with the advent of the Messiah. What reason would we have for taking it non-literally? The only ones who reject it do so for theological reasons, not hermeneutical. Let's put it this way: there's no hermeneutical reason whatsoever to take in any way other than straightfowardly.CAn I ask you somehting, Jac? what makes this verse an actual picure instead of metaphorical (jsut curious).
Of course there is. We've been talking about it in this thread. Don't be like the atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God's existence just because they reject the conclusions. When I say there is no evidence of design change in the future, I mean just that: NO EVIDENCE. I'll retract that if you provide any (even if I disagree with it). But I've given no less than three arguments that design did change at the Fall (or, at least, the use of existing design):Of course there is no eviene that designed changed with the fall whch implies thatGod made a bad design with the sharks, the snakes, the spiders, the eagle.....
Again, you cannot accept a restoration theology without accepting that there was no animal death before the Fall. Observe:no debate here
See above, and please, let's not be dismissive with such statements as "Typical YEC arguments." Labeling an argument does nothing to show its rightness or wrongness.Typical YEC arguments. If this works for you that's great. Show me then how they cn change a shark, an eagle, a praying mantis, a spider, a snake, fungi.... this again this stresses the silliness of uilding an animal with such a design that would eat cereal. Why would He build a praying mantis with such speed....to catch fruit? Gee, those hard to catch fruit certaily requires fast forelimbs. Why would He build a shark with rows upon rows of teeth if it was going to simply eat plants? Or wth the reflexes to respond to prey?
I'm not going to take this as an argument against YEC, because I suspect that you know better. Interesting anecdote, though, about people abusing theology.YOu know, I think the silliest thing I heard from someone was "I certainly hope God has "meat-trees" in the new kingdom because I d love my meat and I would hate to give that up" (I am NOT making that up). If we truly believe that Go'd s intention was for us to be vegetarians than we shoud all be vegetarians in accordanc with restoration of HIs kingdom.
Again, you are claiming omniscience.Jac, it may all be as you say. Ultimately it strains the testament of HIs creation. It makes God out to be capricous in HIs designs.
Six bottoms lines? Ok . . .Bottom line:
1) THe examples you give are either exceptions or have perfectly good reasons for the canines
2) Most of the tru predators have designs that would strain the idea of God as a good designer
3) I don't dispute that the creation ws affected by the fall, I disagree with HOW it affected it
4) I think it is straining His creation to go hrough all of these hoops to explain away carnivory when God BOASTS about it in JOb (which hardly seems like a God who wants only plant eaters)
5) The new kingdom that Isaiah refers to isn't a necssary argument for what Eden was like pre-fall
6) I think you till labor under the misunderstanding of OEC thinking. Fro you it seems to be "this way or the high way". Or that it has to be this way and you can't have it that way because you are OEC.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html
Forgive me, but you haven't demonstrated it false with those skulls at all, all you have shown is that there are a few exceptions. Which one can do with any basic structure (wings, forinstnce) , and it doesn't negate the basic premise of the structure. I can say, "wow, look at the wings, they are perfectly suited to flight" you can point to me the ostrich and the rhea as to the exception and it doens't negate that birds that fly have wings.jac wrote:Obviously not. So you can show me all the beautifully "designed" killers you want. It doesn't follow that they were therefore necessarily designed for the purpose of being killers. It simply doesn't follow. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective there have been small adaptations that have made them more effecient in their killing. Fine, but the logical point you are missing is that possible structure does not necessarily lead to intended design. I've demonstrated how that is false even in this world with several cases (the various skulls, the fork, and the lion skull).
Which, perhaps, I could maybe could buy if it weren't for the fact that creationists don't rely on this argument for the creation. usually the argument is more on the design element. Rarely do I here the creationist argue: "boy, we can't make any conclusions about *anything* in biology,since just becuase it looks like something doesn't make it so"....But you guys DON"T say that....every week on this one radio station I hear the creaiton moment and they wax poetic about the "efficiency and design" .jac wrote:Structural effectiveness does not necessarily guarantee intended design.
The cheetah's speed was for naught but showing off
Interesting that God told the animals to multiply on the earth Genesis 1:21-22. So how could God curb overpopulation if the commandment was to multiply? There is a certain limit to how much the population the world can handle.. If Adam and Eve and their progeny had reproduced at the rate of just one child every four years, they could have produced as many as 17 billion offspring before their 900th anniversary...zoegirl wrote:but I don't hold to God being whimiscal at the expense of funciton or to "secret" functions thta are bizarrely hidden for a theology that is not necessary to the curse. (again, I don't believe that the curse didn't affect the creation just that it didn't necessarily introduce animal death)
Oh, and the population birth rates of multiudes of animals must have been *completely* different, since many animals over produce currently (sponges, jellyfish, turtles, fish) because their offspring have such a high death rate due to predation. Of course, that must have been for another reason!?!?! Or did the entire reproductive strategies change for these prey animals.
-
No, I've not resorted to an "anything goes" approach. Clearly, "anything" doesn't go. Sharks don't have the apparatus to fly, so it'd be absurd to argue that they ever had that ability (shy of evidence, of course).Forgive me, but you haven't demonstrated it false with those skulls at all, all you have shown is that there are a few exceptions. Which one can do with any basic structure (wings, forinstnce) , and it doesn't negate the basic premise of the structure. I can say, "wow, look at the wings, they are perfectly suited to flight" you can point to me the ostrich and the rhea as to the exception and it doens't negate that birds that fly have wings.
You've given me an example of a fork which of course can be strained to show has multiple functions. You have tried to gve examples of where animals have multiple designs but have basically resorted to the "anything goes" approach to the design.
Of course structure can have multiple functions...for instance we do see herbivorous animals with sharp claws. we can use some basic intelligence; however, and put together a body plan that reveals a *total package*
1. It doesn't matter if you buy it or not. The principle is logically unassailable. You may doubt its application here, but you cannot get around the FACT as presented.Which, perhaps, I could maybe could buy if it weren't for the fact that creationists don't rely on this argument for the creation. usually the argument is more on the design element. Rarely do I here the creationist argue: "boy, we can't make any conclusions about *anything* in biology,since just becuase it looks like something doesn't make it so"....But you guys DON"T say that....every week on this one radio station I hear the creaiton moment and they wax poetic about the "efficiency and design" .
Sure it's reasonable to conclude those things unless He has told you otherwise. We do this all the time in our every day lives. A man and his wife are arguing because he sees her walking across the street with another man. He assumes that she's cheating on him, to which she replies, "Why would you assume that? Did the thought not cross your mind that there could have been other explanations, and should not my character prevent you from making that conclusion?" Or again, a man is giving directions to a friend. He says, "Turn left at the second light; now, the road at that light is behind a large building, so it's easy to miss. But as soon as you see the light, go ahead and start turning, because the road will be right there."And secondly, it simply strains basic observational skills which god Himself has given us. What is simpler to conclude: That God has given us basic intelligence to observe and draw conclusions? That whenever we do see an instance of a top solely carnivorous animal we see some basic similarities and some very very uniques structure in these animals and draw the conclusion that these basic similarities and unique structures are there for the purpose of hunting.
You still aren't seeing my point. I never argued that structures that are now employed for carnivorous activity were once used for peaceful purposes or were even designed for them. I said that such structures could have been co-opted and used in non-intended purposes. A guitar, for instance, is designed to play music, but I can turn it over and use it as a table since the back is flat. Does that mean, though, that just because it can be used for that purpose that it was intended for it? No, nor does it mean that just because body types can be used for carnivorous activity that they were necessarily originally intended for peaceful purposes. They may not have been intended for anything at all besides mere aesthetics!that in *every* instance of our observing these structures, not only are these structures NOT originally designed for hunting, but they are, in fact, designed for some peaceful function. this second premise denies not only a VERY basic premise, that of structure and function, but a basic observational skills and validity of our observations. To say that any structure that I presented (the praying mantis, the shark, the eagle) in these animals are open to interpreation strips us of using the very brains God has given us. There are of course, exceptions to every rule. But for those animals that have canine teeth, the deer, we can SEE the other function!!! We can observe te male deer fighting with other deer. (which of course, is another *mean* aspect of God's creation....why hurt each other for the females...was this before the fall?)
I've already distinguished between chemical and zoological design. Feel free to read my previous response for that. As far as all the others, you are again making the same basic two errors you consistently make:To deny the validity of the relationship between structure and function calls into question pretty much every observation we have made from chemistry to physics to zoology.
If we cannot draw these very simply conclusions without questioning their validity then before the fall...
1) the pelican's beak must surely have held oodles of plants...
2) The flat molars of herbivores are called into question....why, since cats can eat cereal, do cows need flat molars?
3) the baleen teeth of whales must be totally off base, well, gee they may have been for cleaning their tongues!!! (they do eat animals!!!!)
4) the pointed edges of the venus-fly trap and sundew must have been....????
5) The tusks for elephants were simply for decoration and not for competeing and fighting with other elephants
6) the peacock's tail must not have been for attracting mates
7) the antlers for deers must not have been for fighting (that would have led to death!!)
9)the flamingoes beak I guess was for filtering plants....and not krill...
10) the woodpeacker's beak must simply be for....producing a lovely sound?
11) In fact, every beak of every insect eating bird must have been rather silly for getting nectar
12) who knows what Emperor penguins ate!!?!?!? Given the sparse vegetation in the south pole
13) who knows what spiders ate, guess their webs are just for fun and energy wasting
14) The vultures...well, now, there's a interesting bird...guess all of the designs for smelling meat, digging into carcasses with their beaks....must be for something else
15) Guess the venom in snakes....well....?
16) guess the fangs to deliver the venom....
17) guess the constrictors are totally for...killing plants?
18) Not to mention alligators and crocs....guess that death roll was for the trees
19) the pirrahnas...? all those silly pointed teeth and crazy behavior....
20) and the myriad of parasites that infest and kill their hosts....guess they paracitized....fruit?
Your objection to this strictly logical point was an appeal to consequences ("but if that's true, we can't know anything about design!!!") which is logically fallacious and thus invalid and irrational. Even if I granted that consequences (which I don't, based on the distinction made above), the logic still has to be dealt with. You can't reject an argument because you don't like its consequences. Frankly, I'm fine with the consequence that the zoology of a Fallen world can't tell us anything about the intended design of an unfallen world. But, then again, I don't hold general revelation--and nature, in particular--to be very "revealing" with reference to original intent. For that, I go to the designer's manual (Scripture).I wrote:Let's just say I could not give explanations for each of your examples (which you could multiply indefinitely!): does it then follow that because I don't know an answer, there therefore is not one? Of course not. Again, put it in a basic syllogism:
1. Jac can't think of the answer to the question
2. ?
3. Therefore, there is no answer to the question
The only way to make this valid is to provide "Jac knows all the answers." In other words, your argument is loaded because it requires me to assume omniscience! Obviously, I'm not. What I CAN do, however, is offer counter-examples to your claim that carnivorous design is only good if it leads to carnivorous activity (which I've done repeatedly now).
For the record, I think I can give explanations for each of those, but I won't offer them on the principle I've discussed here. We need to keep the argument focused on the right thing, and the right thing is which principles are logically valid. I'm trying to show you that yours are not, and that your objections to mine are equally fallacious.
poison dart frogsjac wrote:zoegirl wrote: that in *every* instance of our observing these structures, not only are these structures NOT originally designed for hunting, but they are, in fact, designed for some peaceful function. this second premise denies not only a VERY basic premise, that of structure and function, but a basic observational skills and validity of our observations. To say that any structure that I presented (the praying mantis, the shark, the eagle) in these animals are open to interpreation strips us of using the very brains God has given us. There are of course, exceptions to every rule. But for those animals that have canine teeth, the deer, we can SEE the other function!!! We can observe te male deer fighting with other deer. (which of course, is another *mean* aspect of God's creation....why hurt each other for the females...was this before the fall?)
You still aren't seeing my point. I never argued that structures that are now employed for carnivorous activity were once used for peaceful purposes or were even designed for them. I said that such structures could have been co-opted and used in non-intended purposes. A guitar, for instance, is designed to play music, but I can turn it over and use it as a table since the back is flat. Does that mean, though, that just because it can be used for that purpose that it was intended for it? No, nor does it mean that just because body types can be used for carnivorous activity that they were necessarily originally intended for peaceful purposes. They may not have been intended for anything at all besides mere aesthetics!
jac wrote: Secondly, notice that in the exceptions (that is, counter-examples to your now falsified argument) our ability to observe the primary purpose says nothing about what we once could not observe. Suppose in one hundred years all deer are extinct, and no one is around to observe them. Suppose by some odd miracle that all references to deer are removed from all scientific and historical references. An archaeologist comes along and digs up one of those skulls. Are we to fault him for concluding that the animal must have been carnivorous?
jac wrote: If someone argued they were herbivores, by your standard, they would be mocked. Now, if said scientist could go back in time and observe the ACTUAL intention of those designs, he could come up with a proper interpretation of them. But this only proves my point about omniscience. Our observation of structures being employed relates to knowledge. Just because we can't think of a non-carnivorous way that such structures could be used (if they were used at all, in some cases)--precisely because we can no longer observe them in action--it does NOT follow that we can conclude they MUST have been originally intended for carnivorous activity unless you can go on to claim omniscience!
Finally, when we take biblical revelation into account, only then are we properly using our brains, because only then are we considering ALL the evidence. You may argue that it strips us of reason to not claim omniscience, but I claim that it strips Scripture of its authority if you insist that your finite and highly fallible interpretation of the world as it stands today must be the determining factor on what Scripture must mean.
genesis 3 wrote: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
jac wrote:
zoegirl wrote: To deny the validity of the relationship between structure and function calls into question pretty much every observation we have made from chemistry to physics to zoology.
If we cannot draw these very simply conclusions without questioning their validity then before the fall...
1) the pelican's beak must surely have held oodles of plants...
2) The flat molars of herbivores are called into question....why, since cats can eat cereal, do cows need flat molars?
3) the baleen teeth of whales must be totally off base, well, gee they may have been for cleaning their tongues!!! (they do eat animals!!!!)
4) the pointed edges of the venus-fly trap and sundew must have been....????
5) The tusks for elephants were simply for decoration and not for competeing and fighting with other elephants
6) the peacock's tail must not have been for attracting mates
7) the antlers for deers must not have been for fighting (that would have led to death!!)
The cheetah's speed was for naught but showing off
9)the flamingoes beak I guess was for filtering plants....and not krill...
10) the woodpeacker's beak must simply be for....producing a lovely sound?
11) In fact, every beak of every insect eating bird must have been rather silly for getting nectar
12) who knows what Emperor penguins ate!!?!?!? Given the sparse vegetation in the south pole
13) who knows what spiders ate, guess their webs are just for fun and energy wasting
14) The vultures...well, now, there's a interesting bird...guess all of the designs for smelling meat, digging into carcasses with their beaks....must be for something else
15) Guess the venom in snakes....well....?
16) guess the fangs to deliver the venom....
17) guess the constrictors are totally for...killing plants?
18) Not to mention alligators and crocs....guess that death roll was for the trees
19) the pirrahnas...? all those silly pointed teeth and crazy behavior....
20) and the myriad of parasites that infest and kill their hosts....guess they paracitized....fruit?
I've already distinguished between chemical and zoological design. Feel free to read my previous response for that. As far as all the others, you are again making the same basic two errors you consistently make:
1. You are asking me (and assuming for yourself) omniscience with regard to all potential purposes in all potential words;
2. You are confusing "intended design" for "adapted design" as discussed above.
For all your arguments, zoe, you are not responding to the logical point I am making. Until you refute THAT, I'll say the same thing I said in my previous reply:
I wrote:
Let's just say I could not give explanations for each of your examples (which you could multiply indefinitely!): does it then follow that because I don't know an answer, there therefore is not one? Of course not. Again, put it in a basic syllogism:
1. Jac can't think of the answer to the question
2. ?
3. Therefore, there is no answer to the question
The only way to make this valid is to provide "Jac knows all the answers." In other words, your argument is loaded because it requires me to assume omniscience! Obviously, I'm not. What I CAN do, however, is offer counter-examples to your claim that carnivorous design is only good if it leads to carnivorous activity (which I've done repeatedly now).
jacj wrote: For the record, I think I can give explanations for each of those, but I won't offer them on the principle I've discussed here.
jac wrote: Frankly, I'm fine with the consequence that the zoology of a Fallen world can't tell us anything about the intended design of an unfallen world. But, then again, I don't hold general revelation--and nature, in particular--to be very "revealing" with reference to original intent.
See I*do* see God revealed, at least His essence as a creator. It's why I love what i do. I look at His creation and I see purpose, I see fits, and order, and p[uzzle pieces coming together. jac wrote: For that, I go to the designer's manual (Scripture).
I'm not taking this any way other than good debate. Iron sharpens iron, right? And I do appreciate these types of conversations, because I think we know each other well enough that we can get to the important issues without endless qualifications, as you may have to do when talking with people you don't know.THanks, by the way, and hopefully you;re not tking this in any oter way other than a debate. These are basics that do seem to strike at the difference between scientists and theologians perhaps.
An argument with no direct scriptural support isn't any stronger and in fact in the view of many, is weaker.Jac3510 wrote:An argument from silence is a pretty weak bottom line.
The issue is the interpretation of several key passages, not arguments from silence or examination of modern body-types that only beg the question.I wrote:You must first weigh the Scriptural evidence against pre-Fall carnivorous activity and make your decision based on that. I am saying, then, that the basis of your position is wrong.