The point of the lion article is to point out that not all lions eat meat, not that they ate spaghetti before the fall.
If I get a Creation.com article that accurately shows my views and yours, would you agree to show me how its unreasonable? I’d also like to show you some of their articles dealing with the various dating methods you mentioned. Also in regards to lions eating meat, and not veggies, I believe a lot of things have changed since the fall as all of creation turned toward sin.
Could you please supply some examples of where they are incorrect, quotemining and provide context.
The only point that the lion story made was that humans can use animal products and extreme heat to do what a bovine digestive system can do. They basically manufacturer “artificial meat” so that a carnivore could survive on it. You chose to post it in a discussion about pre-fall, not-yet-carnivores. You are wise for now retreating from that argument. A lion anecdote in no way addresses the fact that the Bible says nothing about a second creation where God made carnivores or converted previously “abstaining” meat-eaters.
Genesis 1:29-39
A post was split to a new topic: Please explain the evidence for ancient earth in light of some creationist claims
I gotta go offline for a bit, I’ll reply later, bye.
There are several good compilations of YEC quote-mining examples on-line. One of the oldest is at TalkOrigins. It is no longer actively maintained so I don’t know if they have many of the latest examples from Creation.com but you should be able to Google for those at other websites.
The old link I have in records is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Creation.com, like AIG and ICR, tends to recycle the classics so you shouldn’t have any difficulty finding that they’ve used many of the same quote-mines listed at TalkOrigins.
I wish such compilations had been around when I needed them most.
Just because they may have been wrong (I will look into that) on that does not mean they are wrong on everthing, and in regards to the no relevant PhD thing, most of them have PhDs in biology, science, geology, physics, or paleontology.
The pastor of my church in Indonesia liked to cite that scripture as proof that Genesis “got the science right long before modern science”. Plants, as harvesters of the sun’s energy, are indeed the foundation of the entire food chain! No matter what an organism actually eats, whether it be a vegetarian eating leaves, a carnivore eating meat, a parasite consuming blood nutrients, life on earth is built on plants being able to make their own food by mining the energy from the sun!
Yes, the boring caterpillar, the grazing mountain goat, and the prowling lion all depend upon plants for their food! The nutrients in all food come from soil, air, and water—but it takes plants to make them into food.
I’m a bit surprised that you agree with the famous atheist. He presumed to argue with God by saying that he refused to believe that God would ever choose to use death in his divine plan. Yet the Bible tells us that that is exactly what God did.
The Bible also tells us that God’s ways are not our ways and that we can’t presume to second-guess God and tell him how he should have set up the world.
For example, my digestive system seems rather gross to me. And a lot of the things my body produces are rather disgusting and malodorous. (Don’t stand too close to me after I’ve spent a half hour at the gym.) Do you, much like Templeton, think that God made poor choices? Do you think that God was wrong to create my body in such a way that my bodily secretions are often gross and foul smelling? Or do you think that God originally created my body to be “perfect” and everything smelled like roses, but when Adam sinned, there was a new creation (unmentioned in the Bible) when human anatomy (and lion anatomy) was changed so that it would become more disgusting?
Have you ever read Templeton’s autobiography? He and Billy Graham were both Youth for Christ evangelists. But Templeton eventually decided that God should have created things differently and more to Templeton’s liking. So I’m very surprised you cite Templeton as someone you want to agree with and look to for wisdom.
Biologos has lots of great articles and even videos which address many of your concerns. They deal with many of the topics Creation.com discusses.
In regards to the lion thing, the world was not the same before the fall, man became mortal, child birth became painful, and man became sinful. Man was made steward of the world and since he fell so did the world he watched over. “Through one man death came into the WORLD” why would it say world if this is a spiritual death since animals don’t go to heaven, if it was a spiritual death it would only matter for man not the whole world.
Dr. Todd Woods blog also deals with some of the poor arguments promoted by Creation.com. He is a young earth creationist pleading with his colleagues to stop undermining their own efforts with pseudo-science and dishonest quote-mines. I’m guessing that you will trust his opinion more than mine so please do a Google search for his name. His blog is easy to find. (I don’t agree with all of his conclusions but I admire his honesty and his consistency in trying to be Christ-like.)
What he is saying is that in your view this is a problem, but in ours it is our fault due to the fall which caused this.(he’s my brother) This also applies to body odors and other disgusting things.
Excellent! Romans 5:12. Yes! Check out what word Paul uses for “world”. You are assuming “planet earth” (GE) but Paul chose to use the word KOSMOS, which means “the world of people”!
2Peter 3 makes the same important distinction between the Noahic flood of the KOSMOS (the world of people) and the future destruction of the GE (the world of continents and rocks, planet earth!)
Thank you for settling the matter! I wish I had at hand the classic article by Professor Tertius on this distinction. Yes, we know that HUMAN DEATH and not animal death was the topic because KOSMOS refers to the world of people. (In English we make similar distinctions between the COSMOLOGICAL WORLD and the GEOLOGICAL WORLD, based on those Greek words of KOSMOS and GE.)
John 3:16 says that God so loved the WORLD (KOSMOS). Yes, God loves people, not rocks! Christ died to save a sinful world (KOSMOS), not to save rocks and animals.
Equivocation fallacies so often explain hermeneutical problems. WORLD has multiple meanings in the Bible but when we look at the original language, the text is often much less ambiguous.
I must get back to my work. I’m so glad the discussion got down to the heart of the matter and an appropriate conclusion.
So do you mean it could go either way?
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G2889/kosmos.htm and I will be done with this for now as I believe we have all said all that we need to.