Dinosaurs and the broken world


(Bron) #1

I am teaching about the fall and that the sin of Mankind resulted in the broken world: death, natural disaster…
If this is the case and the dinosaurs were extincted before mankind then how do we explain the brokenness of the world before the fall of man.
This is not meant to be a trivial question but a genuine desire to understand a consistent response to enquirers.


(George Brooks) #2

@lihoubronwyn

Bron, I’ve never understood this sentence: “… how do we explain the brokenness of the world before the fall of man?”

Why would the world be PERFECT at any time? For the world to be perfect - - wouldn’t that be Heaven or Paradise?

That is just as inexplicable as the idea that a decision by Adam could somehow change all the Universal laws of nature.

Nature is IMPERFECT. Humans are IMPERFECT and MORTAL. If Humans were not, they would be divine. If Nature was perfect, it would be Heaven.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #3

@lihoubronwyn

A changing world is not per se a broken world. A chaotic world is a broken.

The Bible indicates that God works with humans by changing people and changing institutions. Science shows us that God created the world we know by changing the climate, the topology, the flora, and the fauna of the earth.

It is humanity that created the brokenness of the world that we see all around us by sin.

The evidence indicates that humans were created after the end of the dinosaurs.


(Christy Hemphill) #4

This is a complicated question that involves a lot of science and theology to even get started on answering it.

Have you checked out some of the resources on the Common Questions page? I think they might help you out, even if it’s just to clarify and narrow down your questions.

Try some of these links and check out the links that appear in the right hand side bar:


(Jon Garvey) #5

Bron

My area of special interest, but space here only to touch on headings (and provoke further research). So I’ll be benignly (and faithfully evangelical, on my word, since you don’t know me) provocative:

(a) The doctrine that the world (apart from man) is broken was not believed by more than one or two major theologians for the first 1500 years of the Church (Chrysostom maybe - he’s about the biggest). Therefore to anyone living before, approximately, the Reformation, the idea of an old earth before man would not have raised any of the theodicy issues about death and suffering shared by both TEs and Creationists now. They all believed creation is essentially as God made it, and built their theology of nature on that. Seems incredible now, doesn’t it?

(b) More easily checked: the Bible simply doesn’t teach a fallen creation. Anywhere. And least of all in Genesis 3. Only it’s hard to see that because so many massive assumptions have been made for so long on the flimsiest of evidence, that getting the scales off ones eyes is a struggle - it was for me, anyway. The miscalled “traditional position” is simply not based on the Bible, or ancient tradition, which is a scandal.

It’s a bit like the difficulty of realising (with the season approaching) that there are no donkeys, stables, kings or even magi-visiting-a-baby-in-a-manger in the Bible, but it’s rather more serious, because it affects ones entire view of God’s world and not just kids’ nativity plays.

If the reply comes, as it usually does (especially from TEs, for some reason) that the world is “obviously broken”, I answer that we are supposed to build our theology (and “broken world because of the fall” is theology) on the biblical witness, not our own assessment of what’s good and evil (that was the whole point of the tree of knowledge, right?).

That’s enough either to whet interest or bring anathemas on myself, but if you want to do some serious study of the biblical and historical material please PM me and I’ll offer some links. That will, of course, completely scupper the whole point of what you’re teaching, but who wants to teach untruths anyway? :relaxed:


(Dcscccc) #6

hi lihoub.

you may be interest in this article:


(George Brooks) #7

I note with interest this part of the linked page:

“What Did Dinosaurs Eat?: The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.”

So… all the varieties of Cats must have had a pretty tough time.

Many (all?) cats have minimal taste buds for carbohydrates… with teeth suited for chewing raw flesh than for having a bowl of rice.

It’s a good thing Adam and Eve changed the Universe, including what a random selection of animals that we now call CARNIVORCES! - - for the sake of Cats (and other carnivores) everywhere!

George


#8

A cat absolutely cannot survive on a vegan diet (one that is free of animal products). Carnivores have short guts that are ill-suited for breaking down fiber. That must have been some paradise-- tigers eating grass and having massive amounts of diarrhea.


#9

See, this is where misperceptions even about daily common reality show how unreliable the evolutionary paradigm really is. Evidence of chlorophyll on teeth of dinosaurs shows that even those presumed to be carnivores were eating plants.

What does our vicious carnivorous cat eat? What does it even prefer? When we feed our dogs some dry crumbly stuff made from plant material, which is really all they ever eat unless a mouse runs by their nose, our cat is right there wanting his share of the same. If the cat has access to unlimited cat food (dry crumbly stuff made of plant material), it will even stop chasing mice, or might kill the mice for sport and leave them lying around the yard.

Does that mean that dogs and cats won’t eat meat? No, of course not. But does it mean they can’t survive without it, or that their teeth and taste can only eat meat? of course not. There is not a single rationale for supposing that their teeth shape would prevent them from being vegetarians. I have seen our dogs eat both raspberries and peas right off the plants. Even chewing potatoes in the garden. The amazing ignorance of their real and potential habits is unreal.


(Dcscccc) #10

here is one interesting example:

http://creation.com/the-cat-who-refuses-to-eat-meat


(George Brooks) #11

Dogs are genetically equipped to be omnivores.

Cats are not.

I really don’t know where you are going with this…


#12

That’s beginning to be obvious. Although my cat doesn’t necessarily like all kinds of vegetarian food, nevertheless he likes dogfood very much, and never misses a feeding on a twice daily basis. That seems rather omnivorous to me. The cat probably doesn’t know he isn’t equiped to be omnivorous. Didn’t take a biology course. An evolutionary biology course, I mean.

Genetically equipped is absurd. We determine potential by what they do or can do, not by our imagination. Genetically equipped is imagination, unless it is backed by evidence, visible evidence with blind controls, etc. Preference does not equal ability. Comparing the nutrient quality of a vegetarian diet with a meat diet would be essential, and comparing mouse meat with rice as an equably nutritious diet, is very, very unscientific.

Clearly, my daily observation is more relevant than someone looking for dna under a microscope. I have heard even of a case of a lion raised on non-meat diet not wanting or even understanding that meat was food. Although rare, it is a valid example, since it distinguishes between preference and capability.

I was most surprised to see my dogs eating peas right off the plants in the garden, or strawberries, or low hanging raspberries. These are all very nutrious foods, natural, and potentially available. While it is entirely possible that present day cats have adapted to meat diets in the last thousand years, just like many humans have apparently become allergic to high gluten wheat, this is no proof or even viable evidence that cats could not at one time have subsisted on non-meat diets, or that most humans had difficulty with eating wheat.


(George Brooks) #13

JohnZ, we can test and measure cat tongues – to determine what they can taste. They cannot taste carbohydrates. This is not my imagination.

George


#14

Who cares? how is this relevant? Who said they were eating carbohydrates without taste? Who said they need to taste what they eat? Who said no one or nothing ever ate tasteless food? Who is giving them carbohydrates without proteins, sugars, and other “tasteful” compounds attached?


(George Brooks) #15

John,

I think it’s silly to imagine that Eden was SUPPOSED to be a perfect realm … with dogs eating sweet strawberries right off the bush … but Tigers and Lions dutifully eating potatoes and apples they CANNOT TASTE (because they are minimally composed of proteins).

Animals are the way they are - - not because Adam ate a piece of fruit. His action did not CREATE carnivores.

But if you think Samson had magic hair and Balaam had a talking donkey … then I suppose you could believe anything.

George


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #16

@gbrooks9

George,

Samson did not have magic hair. His strength cam from a vow his parents made for him, of which not cutting his hair was an important aspect.


#17

Again, you are lacking a balanced approach to science, George. And that’s why you think it is silly to imagine… which is exactly what you are doing, but with a very limited imagination. How can you prove that cats have always had an inability to taste carbohydrates? In your own evolutionary paradigm, you should have the imagination to imagine cats that at one time could taste everything. And what a silly thing to say anyway… when do you ever separate the carbohydrates from the rest of the food in order to eat it. Why do you think we add a little bit of salt to our white peeled potatoes, even to our green beans, and even to our meat? Is it because we cannot eat it otherwise? In fact, it is as likely that cats reject certain foods because of the taste, rather than because they cannot taste it. It is not taste, but digestion and digestibility that will make the biggest difference.

I do not believe just anything. I do not believe you.


#18

Cats are obligate carnivores; dogs are not.


(Christy Hemphill) #19

Right. I’m sure we all remember that slow news day story of the Australians who tried to raise their kitten a vegan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/kitten-vegan-diet-nearly-dies_n_3644213.html


(Christy Hemphill) #20

But that is exactly what YEC groups teach: “Many have thought up theories suggesting how this change might have occurred, but there is no overwhelming biblical support for any single theory. John Whitcomb suggests that in the Edenic curse God reprogrammed the genetic material of all organisms, and even man. This resulted in such things as disease-causing microorganisms, thorns in plants, and carnivory in animals.”

So it’s really no use trying to argue with them based on modern biology or the fossil record.