Evidence for God from Science

I'm a YEC if you guys didn't know . So, i'm just wondering, if there was no sin before the fall, how did animals die? Because sin caused death to occur, no?
I remember someone saying that some animals could've accidently died, but that just seems to leave me with questions more than answer them.

Nonetheless, can you guys enlighten me please. Just curious to know how the Fall of Man and OEC can be intertwined.



Thank you,

-Dallas

Check out this article on the main page that addresses some of this. There are others as well if you check at the bottom or use the search function on the main page.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

The bible is pretty clear that sin brought death to man.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

So, death entered because of Adam's sin. And this sin is passed upon all men. Why? Because all have sinned. Can an animal sin? No. All men sin.
This position makes the assumption that physical death is bad. But for the Christian the death of Christ is the love of God demonstrated. God could have demonstrated his love in numerous ways, yet chose to do it through death. This isn't to minimize the value of life, but amplify it.

We also need to understand that the garden did not cover the entire earth. So perhaps their were different laws applying in the paradise of Eden.
When Adam fell, death came upon him immediately, but he didn't stop breathing and go into cardiac arrest at that moment. So obviously death had more to do than with just those physical factors. Also if we consider the tree of life, this brings up some questions. Were A&E created that they wouldn't die? Or, did they have to eat of the tree of life to sustain themselves in the garden. I tend to think the later. If they maintained their fellowship with God, and ate of the tree of life, they would live. Being seperated from the tree brought physical death, but they also faced sprititual penalties as well because of their sin.

Read Romans 5 as a whole and ask yourself if what it says there is true of animals as well as humans. You have to assume some things going into that chapter and isolate some small sections (which is what the common YEC position does in my opinion) and be inconsistent in how you apply all the elements of Rom 5.

Dallas, pay close attention to jlay's post. Jlay is a YEC who knows that Romans 5:12 shows that adam's sin brought death to mankind, alone, because only mankind is capable of sinning. If you want to believe there was no animal death before adam's sin, you'll have to read something into scripture, to make your case.

Jlay, are you sure you're still YEC? You're making it difficult for me to believe you still hold to YEC.

It is interesting that God, when he reduces the amount of year humans live after the flood, sees death as a part of His plan to restrict evil in this world that He created. I don't think death is necessarily evil, or necessarily good. Death is just a natural part of our world which God intended to be temporary.

Rick,

Regardless of what position one holds, each relies on assumptions that are not provable. All dating methods require assumptions that are not provable, young and old alike.
In regards to YEC, I am more focused on the existance of man, and that man is a special creation.
I've certainly examined many of the YEC positions, and over the years I have seen where the arguments are valid and where they fail. So, I'd say I'm more reformed YEC.

You're a more reasonable YEC than many I know and I'm glad to know that there are such YECs out there.

jlay wrote:

Regardless of what position one holds, each relies on assumptions that are not provable. All dating methods require assumptions that are not provable, young and old alike.

I agree. But, as far as this specific topic is concerned, surely you realize that some prominent YECs claim scripture backs their belief that animal death didn't begin, until Adam's sin. My point was, that to make that claim, one has to read something into scripture, that isn't there. Even in the "plain reading" way, that some YECs want us to read the bible.

In regards to YEC, I am more focused on the existance of man, and that man is a special creation

I agree. I can't see any way around this, from scripture.

I've certainly examined many of the YEC positions, and over the years I have seen where the arguments are valid and where they fail. So, I'd say I'm more reformed YEC

Is "reformed YEC", another way of saying, "reluctantly transitioning from YEC, to OEC"?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You're a more reasonable YEC than many I know and I'm glad to know that there are such YECs out there.

Yes, I agree, Bart. It just goes to show how one can look at OEC, objectively, without necessarily agreeing with all OEC entails. Jlay is certainly no "Ken Ham". And you know that is a compliment.

Oh, and jlay, when you decide to change your profile from "Young-Earth Creationist", to "Day-Age / Progressive Creationist", let me know. I'll show you how to change your profile.

Just a little thing to say. I was at a little discussion at my Youth pastors house with a good size amount of people (24?). Nonetheless, they were talking about Evolution. Knowing me, I butted in the conversation and gave them two different stand points of Creation. Both YEC, and OEC. What I preceded to tell them was, I don't care how old the earth is. I want to know WHO or WHAT created. God or Natural selection? So my view point on how old the earth actually is, doesn't really matter to me. I just want to know who. I'm pretty open to Ideas of how old the earth actually is, but I was raised as a YEC, and it's hard for me to switch

Dallas, what do you think about the answers that have been posted for your original question?

RickD wrote:Dallas, what do you think about the answers that have been posted for your original question?

That animals are incapable of sinning. So, what you guys are saying is that physical death was inevitable. But, when Adam sinned, it caused a "Spiritual death" and not a physical death, right?

I'll only speak for myself but the death spoken of in terms of Man, is certainly spiritual and it may be that that introduced physical death to man as well. The context of Rom 5 requires some pretty spectacular contortions to attempt to draw from that passage that it's speaking of all physical death and that prior to the fall there was no death present in the context of the animals (and of course plants which becomes even more absurd.) Further, to take it to that extreme and to be consistent with the passage it would raise questions as to the spiritual state of animals and their redemption under Christ.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'll only speak for myself but the death spoken of in terms of Man, is certainly spiritual and it may be that that introduced physical death to man as well. The context of Rom 5 requires some pretty spectacular contortions to attempt to draw from that passage that it's speaking of all physical death and that prior to the fall there was no death present in the context of the animals (and of course plants which becomes even more absurd.) Further, to take it to that extreme and to be consistent with the passage it would raise questions as to the spiritual state of animals and their redemption under Christ.

From what I know, animals don't have a spiritual death or even a self-concious, so the ability to accept Christ is impossible. So what's my mistake in what i'm saying?

Dallas wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'll only speak for myself but the death spoken of in terms of Man, is certainly spiritual and it may be that that introduced physical death to man as well. The context of Rom 5 requires some pretty spectacular contortions to attempt to draw from that passage that it's speaking of all physical death and that prior to the fall there was no death present in the context of the animals (and of course plants which becomes even more absurd.) Further, to take it to that extreme and to be consistent with the passage it would raise questions as to the spiritual state of animals and their redemption under Christ.

From what I know, animals don't have a spiritual death or even a self-concious, so the ability to accept Christ is impossible. So what's my mistake in what i'm saying?

Sit down and read Romans 5 and where it speaks of death, instead of just reading it in the light of what you believe you already understand about that passage and about death, include in it animal death and see if it makes sense all the way through. I can go into more detail if you like, but I think you'll see it better if you take a look at it yourself and think it through first. If after that you want to talk about it or go through some examination we can. I believe far back in the annuls of the board as well, there's some pretty detailed discussions on just this issue. People of integrity and good will toward one another can disagree on this issue, but I think it's not that hard to see that you have to be pretty select in Romans 5 about when it's speaking of human death or all death, or else you're then faced with some very hard questions as to how Paul could be addressing all death and speaking of things that are unique to humans elsewhere.