I thought the YEC position was animals only started to eat meat post fall so these are just from that era. Since T-Rex was on the ark it means these could also be post flood fossils.
Given that specialized carnivores definitely appear by the mid-late Cambrian, that would make most of the Phanerozoic post-flood if it were applied consistently.
The idea that carnivores only came after the fall is not restricted to YEC. The whole notion of death being evil or the result of the fall is quite prevalent if mistaken. As is the idea that the wolrd could exist without death. (at east the world we have now)
Richard
You are quite correct here. Many animals are obligate predators. Moreover, without predation, many species which are not directly predator nor prey, would not be present. One of the most influential papers published in the field of ecology was FOOD WEB COMPLEXITY AND SPECIES DIVERSITY, in 1966 by Robert T . Paine, reporting one of the simplest experiments ever. He just selected a shoreline tidal poll full of marine life, and tossed out all that systemâs apex predator, which was the starfish. Neighboring tidal pools were left alone as controls. Over time, even though only the starfish were removed, the overall species diversity collapsed as monocultures took over.
Not only carnivores, but animals in general came after the fall. The âbeasts of the fieldâ refer to microbes that âtillâ, make the soil fertile. The fall itself was a transition from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom. Plants produce their own food whereas animals donât⌠they have to gather or hunt food.
While Adam is seen as a person in the garden, there is symbolism there where Adam is allowed to eat from the trees of the garden⌠the same ones that he dresses and keeps, i.e. he worked to produce his own food. He was instructed not to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden, and while many will say that Eve was adding to Godâs initial instruction by relaying to the serpent, âneither shall you touch itâ, I think He probably did say that. In other words, the trees in the midst of the garden were for God Himself to tend. So, by eating the fruit, they were taking on a new nature⌠one where they are taking what is not theirs (what they did not produce).
I donât think its just death but also an attempt to balance what we believe is the goodness of God with the apparent cruelty of reality (evolution or the natural order) and the amount of suffering (human and animal) that occurs. Itâs hard to think pleasantly of the millions (billions? trillions?) of animals that get eaten alive or that get a foot stuck in something and slowly die of starvation while in painâlet alone humans. Maybe I watched too many Disney movies but it is difficult not to deem what appears to be gratuitous suffering in nature as evil. Death is actually a mercy at times.
Vinnie
Precisely the mistaken view i was claiming.
You are better off not mixing your science and theology.
Another example of false convolution from Scripture.
Althugh I accept the discomfort, that is no excuse for calling Death evil, as you say, it can be a relief.
But that is praagmatism, not Scripture.
Richard
PS ff, means that I have inclued the text that follows but not quoted it.
The experience in Yellowstone in the U.S. shows that â not only did species though extinct return after the massive fires in 1988, a few species thought extinct were found again after the re-introduction of wolves, a part of the radical re-adjustment of the parkâs flora once the predators returned.
Oregon did that experiment massively if accidentally: starfish were nearly wiped out because tourists collected them. When the state law protecting starfish was passed and their numbers recovered, the makeup of species in tidal pools began to change.
No, it doesnât â it refers to actual animals, frequently to ones that could be eaten. You donât get to change the meanings of words to fit your system of thought â unless you want to admit that youâve gone totally allegorical . . . keeping in mind that allegorical interpretations have led all too often to heresy (unless guided by the Cross).
This is called adding to the text in order to change the meaning of the story.
It strikes me that in all the times this has come up here Iâve never seen the Cross applied to the matter! Since Jesus is the perfect representation of God, and the Cross is the epitome showing just Who Jesus is, then everything in scripture has to be interpreted according to the Cross.
So what does the Cross have to say about âthe apparent cruelty of realityâ? It ties to the apparent cruelty of God in leaving Jesus to suffer the worst punishment ever invented by humans, and what that means. It means two things: first, that God can be (or at least appear) cruel; second, that God Himself is willing to die for the sake of others.
As to the first, that cruelty wasnât direct by God, it was because He took away all divine protection from Jesus, allowing the human powers in existence and the powers of darkness to have their way â so in the suffering of animals in evolution we can see the very same thing: God could extend divine protection, but in a fallen world He chooses not to do so. As to the second, the death of some so that others may live is exactly what happened on the Cross.
So in âthe apparent cruelty of realityâ we see something that corresponds to both the âalien workâ of God and the deep love of God. Of course this can only be seen by viewing things through the filter of the Cross, but then as Christians that is exactly what we should always do.
A further point is that via such apparent cruelty each species is improved as each generation is a tiny bit stronger or faster or whatever, which matches the goal of God that all things should improve. Yes, itâs a messy method, but one suited to a fallen world.
Yes the word could included animals, but they came later. No need to go allegorical here as microbes can be included within the definition of the words.
-
beast - (2416. ×Öˇ× chay) Alive, living, life
-
of the field - (7704. ׊ָ××Öś× sadeh) Field, countryside, open country ; Strongâs Exhaustive Concordance - country, field, ground, land, soil, wild
Can mean something alive, living in the soil. By saying that it only can include animals, or even that they can be eaten is excluding meaning from the words. There are a limited number of Hebrew words to describe things. So we get compound words⌠If God wanted to describe microbes to us, what Hebrew words would He use that existed in Bible times?
Its not adding to the text but saying just as Eve said. Did she lie? ⌠did she sin before she ate the fruit? No, Satan is the father of lies and the only think he said before Eve answered what in the form of a question.
Iâll add that the allegory is the story that we read on the surface. The true meaning, actual event, is embedded in the story.
I canât see that being what the people who wrote Genesis understood by those words.
So what were the birds and fish mentioned under day 3? Airborne bacteria and phytoplankton?
Why was this âinterpretationâ not considered before the invention of the microscope?