Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Do you think that God never uses natural means, under His control, to accomplish His will? If you think He does, then what is your problem with my reasoning?

What specifically and how do chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution?

I have posted this repeatedly. Dawkings claims that evolution STARTS WITH NOTHING and explains every step along the way.

I point out that everyone admits that amino acids do NOT naturally occur in any fashion OTHER than random chiral distributions (even ATHEIST evolutionists confess to this) as the article at the lead in this thread points out.

This means NO abiogenesis - NO START from which to begin natural selection.

"Lets all close our eyes and pretend we don't see the the point"? (I think I hear that song in the background again).

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
What specifically and how does entropy prevent from happening in evolution?

This is the SECOND point that "EVEN atheist evolutionists admit to" - the blatant fact that INCREASED entropy is EXACTLY what we see in all biological systems in the form of a principle driving towards disorder and decay.

Part two of that is that atheist evolutionists ALSO admit that DECREASED entropy (in fact a MASSIVE decrease in entropy) is NEEDED to for th speculative proposal of a "molecules-to-human-brain sequence"

Again - just stating the obvious.

"Lets all close our eyes and pretend we don't see the the point"? (I think I hear that song in the background again).

You keep asking for this same obvious point to be brought up - why?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said "Agreed. That is exegesis. Let the Bible speak for itself. Let the first and primary meaning as understood by the primary audience have full influence in interpreting the text. Its one thing not to agree with what the Bible says - it is quite another not to even allow yourself to know WHAT IT says because you are so busy trying to prop up evilutionism... As has been pointed out before - there is no form of exegesis whereby you take your faith in evolutionism and wishful thinking about what you would LIKE to have found in nature - and use that as your guide for interpreting God's Word."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
OK, Bob, but let's be consistent here. Following your own rules, show me that the earth is not flat. (Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" where the word for circle means a flat disk. Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." Being able to see the whole world from a high mountian indicates the writer thought the world to be flat.)

#1. Notice that your argument is that the DETAILS of the Bible are not trustworthy. Rather we need to find some more general less-specific "principle" while ignoring "Details".

#2. Notice that your "untrustworthy Bible" argument does NOT confine itself to Genesis 1 or 2 or 5 or 6 or 6 or the entire book of Genesis -- but also to Isaiah and even to the Gospel accounts themselves!

Here is "instruction" for all who would contemplate the leap into evolutionism.

Here is "instruction" for anyone wanting to know what you meant when you confessed that the Bible really DOES use Creationist models but does so because of the ignorance of the reader.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Show me that the sun does not go around the earth. (Joshua 10:13 "And the sun stood still." Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it." Job 38:19-20 "Where is the way where light dwelleth... and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?")

Show me that the snow and the hail are not kept in storehouses waiting to be used. (Job 38:22 "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail.") Or that the rain is not caused by the windows of heaven being opened. (Genesis 8:2 "The windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.")

Detail - after detail that you find "unnacceptable" and that excuse your untrustworthy-Bible paradigm. And we observe that it goes from Genesis all the way into the Gospels themselves.

Your argument is that the detail is not acceptable so we must go to mans ideas of what REALLY happened when Satan showed Christ the kingdoms of the world (AS IF we speculated in the past that Satan found a single mountain high enough to see across a flat earth).

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

But I do not see you arguing for geocentrism or a flat earth not do I see you arguing against modern weather theories. These things that I have quoted here, if you were to just take the plain, literal reading, would indicate that you should be holding some interesting positions. But you do not.

So you can either use your own rules to disprove these things or you can admit that sometimes it is OK to allow outside knowledge in to help you understand the true meaning of Scripture.

Is it your claim that the author INTENDED his reader to think that Satan found a mountain high enough to see ALL the world - or that Satan had the POWER to display all the cities of earth - WHICH do you think the AUTHOR INTENDED for his primary audience?

Do you think the AUTHOR intended that his reader see glass windows framed in the clouds -- is that your speculative view of what the AUTHOR intended OR do you admit that the AUTHOR and his primary audience KNEW that this was a metaphore?

When we speak today of SUNRISE and SUNSET is it REALLY because those who AUTHOR that information THINK that their audience believe that the SUN revolves around the Earth???

When God RESTS the Gospel account on the fact that EVERYTHING was directly created by Christ (John 1 and Colossians 1) and when He basis the entire WORD of God on that FACT (Genesis 1-2:3) as FIRST and primary introduction to the Gospel story -- do you really think that is "a bogus fact" not really to true in DETAIL?

I find your attempt to equate the GREAT amount of attention that the Word of God spends in telling us that God CREATED by SPEAKING the world into existence and by COMMANDING and having living things "appear" and dry land "appear" and that it was ONE EVENING and Morning bound EACH of these creation events... with "The sun rises in the east - HEY can we really believe that fact"?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Wow! I'm away from this board just two days and six pages come along! This speaks to the amount of feeling involved in this issue for some anyway.

The original post claims that because Jesus said "from the beginning it was not so" that this means evolution is false.

The evolution accepting Christian must believe that God allowed His word to come about as it now stands because men were not ready for the literal truth about how creation took place.

The evolution denying Christian must believe that God allowed his world to bear the signs of old age and evolution for some other in spite of the actual relative youth of the earth and the apparant relationship between species.

Each believer, from his point of view, can perfectly account for Christ's words.

The evolutionist can explain them as referring to the beginning of the human race

The creationist considers the beginning of the human race and the beginning of all creation as, roughly, the same, and hence considers His words to refer to both.

The creationist who insists that Christ's words from that verse prove something against evolution is simply taking his own identification of the two parts of creation as one and reflecting that back, by assumption, into the words of Jesus.

The fact remains, however, that the words this topic started with are not definitive. The interpretation that they refer only to the beginning of the human race is perfectly plausible.

Asserting it is not is to do violence to the plain meaning of the words Christ used. It is to put ideas into these words that are not there.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

When we speak today of SUNRISE and SUNSET is it REALLY because those who AUTHOR that information THINK that their audience believe that the SUN revolves around the Earth???

Men believed that the Sun revolved around the earth until scientists such as Copernicus, Gallileo, and others were able to establish the truth. The transitional period is a matter of historical record. The transition occurred after the writing of our scriptures.

 

[Gup20]

Why, then, were the sharks and other fish spared in the flood? If all flesh was corrupt, why was some flesh (sea life) spared?

Well that's a foolish question, now isn't it.

Perhaps because there wasn't room for them on the ARK where all the other animals were spared?

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

If you insist that this passage is an exhaustive list of the only permitted food sources before the flood, does that mean at this time fish weren't allowed to eat anything?

Actually... you've got that wrong as well. Clearly, the corruption of the original design happened at the Fall, not the flood. The flood came as judgement on all flesh for that corruption.

Birds, land animals, creeping things and humans are all given food in Genesis 1, but fish are not. Why not?

AiG: The Bible makes a clear distinction between the status of plants and animals. People and animals are described in Genesis as having, or being, nephesh (Hebrew)—see Genesis 1:20–21, 24 where nephesh chayyah is translated ‘living creatures,’ and Genesis 2:7 where Adam became a ‘living soul’ (nephesh chayyah). Nephesh conveys the basic idea of a ‘breathing creature.’ It is also used widely in the Old Testament, in combination with other words, to convey ideas of emotions, feelings, etc. Perhaps nephesh refers to life with a certain level of consciousness. Plants do not have such nephesh, and so Adam eating a carrot did not involve death in the biblical sense.

Some species in the piranha group of fish use their jaws and teeth entirely for plants. So it is extremely concieveable that this extends also to fish.

See more on plant eating carnivores.

If you connect Romans 5 with animal death, then you must also connect Jesus' sacrifice with animal's salvation.

This is also incorrect. You do not seem to have any familiarization with Romans 5. Clearly from the context we can see that man is being spoken of here as it relates to salvation. However, death is not exclusive to humanity. If we know when death entered this world for man, then we know when death entered this world period. Remember, man's role at the time was to be 'in charge' or have dominion over the earth. It is clear that you do not understand the Bible and the repeated 'body-head' relationships. Also, we can see in Genesis that many areas of science were influenced by The Fall.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

We can see that animal biology was effected. It says in verse 14 the serpent was cursed above all cattle, and above every other beast. In other words - they are all cursed ... but you are cursed more.

We see pain and sorrow enter the world v16. Plant life and geology is also cursed in v17 and v18.

And finally, we see the curse of death in v19 "... till thou return unto the ground. For out of it wast thou taken, dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return."

So we see all 'areas of life' touched by The Fall in Genesis. Romans 5 speaks about redemption of Christ from the SAME CURSE listed here in Genesis 3. It says that death entered by Adam. Romans connects Jesus as a type of Adam. It links Jesus' redemptive work DIRECTLY to Genesis. Romans 5 talks about people and their redemption, not animals. However, it connects Jesus' redemptive work with the fall - confirming the fall as a real and physical event. One so devastating that God's own son was sacrificed to correct it.

Additionally, we know that while the corruption of all life came about through the actions of one man, the redemption of all MEN is through one man, but is not the same. This redemption has the pre-requisite of belief (faith)... a capability animals do not have.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

For animals are not triune beings, like people are. People have a body, mind, and spirit. Romans 5-6 tells us that Jesus condemned death to our mortal bodies that our spirits may live forever with him (in new bodies) in the resurrection when our mortal bodies die (remember God is also just, and there must be a penalty for sin) - this is why 'getting saved' is called getting 'born again'. This is why God literally becomes our 'father' as we are heirs together with Christ according to the promise. Where do you think the new bodies come from? From God. We are no longer decendents of Adam... but decendents of Christ. Physically and spiritually.

Like I said before, at the fall dominion of this earth was taken from man and became Satan's. He became the 'prince of this earth'.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

In that case, there was also no digestion before the fall, which makes one wonder why God said anything about what they could eat. Without entropy, there would be no need for sustenance, since each living being could be a perpetual motion machine. A plainer reading of the text would seem to indicate that digestion, along with the processes of entropy it implies, were part of what God declared "good" in his creation.

Clearly our bodies no longer function the way they were originally designed to. For example, Adam lived 930 years. Clearly people don't live that long anymore, so we can safely say that our bodies do not function in the same way as their's once did. Their bodies were clearly superior, and it makes sense, as there has been far more time for mutation and loss of information to effect our genomes. Our genomes are the result of 6000 years of degradation of the original design.

Regardless of your stance on creation, the uniformitarian principles of 'what we see today is what existed in the past' is shattered by the long life spans recorded in the Bible.

Indeed. That means that it would not use modern science, since it must also be understood by its original audience. It used the "science" and ideas of the world that were common in the time it was written, and used that to convey God's message which is eternal.

If you believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, then you would know that it is a first hand account - there is little need for God to 'prove' his point with science... He created the earth... told us exactly how He did it... it only happened one way - the way he said he did it. Now whether you know how an internal combustion engine works or if you are a person living in BC times, this is universal. God spoke and said what he meant. He created the world in 7 literal days, created animals discreetly which only reproduce after their own kind, and created man as a completely different and separate entity than any animal.

I believe God chose not to reveal the historical details of creation because (a) they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time that they'd overwhelm the actual message God was conveying, and (b) part of humanity's purpose is to subdue the earth, and that includes learning about it. If God revealed the historical details of creation, he'd spoil a lot of the joy and awe of discovery that has come from great advances through the ages. Nobody likes a wiseguy who spoils all the best parts of a movie, so why should God ruin all the surprises he had (and still has) in store for us in creation?

So let me ask you a question. In a public school, what age does a child first hear that the earth is billions of years old and that we all came from monkeys? Is it 2nd grade? Is it first garde? Is it Kindergarden? Even sooner? Kid at home asks his daddy - "daddy... how did the world begin... how did all the peopel get here?" and the daddy says 'well you see son, a few billion years ago there were no people, there was a pond full of goo. That goo eventually turned into little plants, which eventually turned into little animals... those animals grew and mutated and eventually turned into other animals... first from fish, then to frogs and lizards... then to birds and eventually monkeys turned into people.

How old do you have to be to understand that and believe it? Three years old maybe?

So what you are trying to tell me is that God, having known everything before it happened... having inspried the whole bible in all it's wisdom and mastery... giving us details about events that still havent' happened yet... this God didn't think we were on the intellectual level of a three year old, so he gave us a grand fairy tale that fit what we already thought before we asked the question so as not to confuse us? This is what passes for Truth in your home is it?

That's an example of willful ignorance right there. Men may have penned the Bible, but God wrote it, authored it. As I said, there are things in there that still have not yet come to pass. Clearly, it was written so that it would make sense to us today, us in the past, and us in the future... knowing what we would know in any tense. The plainest clearest reading still ... after all our technology and intellect... says that the earth is ~ 6000 years old and God created man discreetly on the 6th literal ~24 hour day of creation.

The Bible confirms this over and over again. Everything in the Bible points to that as the only true and correct interpretation, and it is the clearest, simplest, most straight forward interpretation.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It boggles my mind the lengths some christians will go through so that they can avoid ridicule from secular humanists regarding creation. Well you know what - you don't have to. There is overwhelming physical evidence to back up the irrefutable Biblical evidence. It starts by believing the Bible is true. The Bible is God's word, and God does not lie.

Hbr 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Here's a hint - when you are doing what God wants you to do, those who hate and dispise God will persecute you. It's a fact of life.

Here's a clue - the biggest holiday on the humanism calendar is Darwin Day. Why? Because those who hate God celebrate that which does away with his ownership of their lives. That which makes the Bible untrue is that which makes them free to follow the lusts of the flesh.

It is AMAZING how much Biblical authority is restored once we return to believing it's truth over the truth of humanistic scientists. There is plenty of science and evidence that supports the bible's version of a young earth, and it's time that the Church take back our history and legacy from the secular world and start re-affirming the truth of God's word.

What is the ONLY thing that can meet human need? God's word. As a nation we can't give out enough money, humanitarian aid, etc to solve the problems of the world, but I guarantee that God can meet human need. The Bible has been relegated to some fairy tale religious book and it is because of Christians like UTEOTW and MERCURY who are content to let the world stomp out the Bible's ultimate authority. It's time to get back to believing the Bible is true, and show the world that it is indeed ultimate truth. Where it touches on science and history it is accurate. It may not be classified as a science textbook, but I will guarentee that it has more truth about science in it than any public school textbook.

How can we expect the lost to believe the Bible and get saved when we, as christians, don't even believe it?

 

[Gup20]

The evolution denying Christian must believe that God allowed his world to bear the signs of old age and evolution for some other in spite of the actual relative youth of the earth and the apparant relationship between species.

In fact the world does not display these signs... they are manufactured by those who hate God and disbelieve the Bible.

The framework of evolution discounts automatically that the account of creation in Genesis is even possible. Therefore all conclusions drawn under that framework follow logically the original pre-supposition. Therefore, there is no way for data interpreted under an evolutionary mindset to support the creation of the Bible (young creation) as it is dismissed by the very interpretive framework before even being considered.

Beyond this, I have shown in my posts in this thread how the Bible declares, confirms, re-affirms again and again the impossibility of evolution. Therefore, taking the Bible as absolute and ultimate truth, we can decisively say that evolution did not take place.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the geneologies and chronologies in Genesis are untrue? Do you believe that Adam was the first and only man, as the Bible says he was? Do you believe that Eve is truely the mother of all human beings?

The real issue here is whether you believe the Bible to be true. The science can come later... there is plenty of it to keep us busy forever... but do you believe the Bible is ultimate and absolutely true?

Next I anticipate you will give me some story about believe it to be absolutely true, but not believing that specific interpretations are true. My next question then is, if we are able to determine without a doubt the correct interpretation, and it disagrees with evolution, could you still believe the bible to be true. Because that is precisely the situation you are in now. The bible affirms repeatedly that evolution didn't happen. You have to throw out and disbleive scores of passages to make evolution remotely plausible with the Bible. You have to make a fairy tale out of a great deal of scripture, in fact, to 'fit' evolution into it.

My friends, you are in the position that you have the choice to either believe what the Bible says ... that the earth is young and that creation is young... or believe what the world and humanism tells you - that we evolved from animals over millions of years.

There is so much science on this issue that we could go back and forth till all of us are so exhausted and none of us would be remotely convinced of the opposing view... there is THAT MUCH EVIDENCE for both views. Why? Cause it's all the same evidence interpreted under different worldview.

However, the most damaging evidence to evolution is the Bible. It clearly leaves no room for evolution, and I think you guys know it because you have avoided the subject for six pages of this discussion... returning constantly to evolution science 'as a dog returns to it's vomit'.

SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE WHERE EVOLTION IS POSSIBLE, OR CHANGE YOUR BELIEF.

You will not be able to - why? Because you believe that Gensis is a fairy tale, and you think that every other book in the bible only quotes that fairy tale and repeats it because they were mislead and misunderstood what God 'really meant'. This doesn't look so intellectually stimulating when it's openly said, does it? In fact you guys are willing to dismiss gobs and gobs of scripture to the authors not having the same intellect and understanding as your advanced evolutionary brains.

Do you see it? Do you see how deep the deception runs in evolution? You guys have dismissed holy, God breathed, and annointed scripture... removed it's credibility an authority... you have essentially called God a liar in order to reconcile your faith with humanistic belief.

The sad thing is that it is so senseless and unwarrented. YEC upholds above all else the authority of scripture. We believe that science ALWAYS confirms the word of God because the Bible is 100% infallible and authoritative. We can show through real science this is true. Yet you guys still resist. Why? So that you are the brunt of less Jesus freak jokes at the watercooler? So that you can try to lend some secular credibilty to the Bible?

Let me tell you guys something. God doesn't need secular humanists to inflate his ego. Neither does the church. We can stand proudly and firmly on the word of God... even in the face of persecution or disbelief because we have faith that God is who he says he is... and that he knows more than we do.

In the end I would rather be seen as wrong by the world and stand firm on God's word, then be seen as right by the world and reject God's word. With YEC, I can see how the world around me confirms God's word, and so can every other reasonably thinking person. Those who reject it do not reject you, but reject the author and Creator.

 

[Gup20]

Men believed that the Sun revolved around the earth until scientists such as Copernicus, Gallileo, and others were able to establish the truth. The transitional period is a matter of historical record. The transition occurred after the writing of our scriptures.

Oh yeah? You know for a fact that Adam didn't know that the earth revolved around the sun? You think Adam never just asked God that? Well since your so certain, lets see some irrefutable evidence that Adam didn't know this.

Let me give you an alternative. Lets say Adam did know that God created the earth in 7 days, and that everything in Genesis is true because he was there. Now lets say he passed that information on to his children and they in turn passed it on to theirs. Eventually a guy named Moses wrote all this down. However, a few thousand years later some guy named Darwin comes along and decides he doens't want to believe in God or the Bible. He loses his daughter and curses God and doesn't understand how a loving God could let that happen to someone he loves. He popularizes another theory on how the world was created. He says God didn't make it in 7 days... it took millions of years and animals evolved into people.

Now, is it that men never believed that the earth was created in 7 days, or did someone come along and change the belief at some point so that another belief became the primary or dominant belief?

So then, how can you say that men believed the sun revolved around the earth until scientists discovered the truth? Were you there at the dawn of time? Do you know that people believed before written history? Do you know that God told Adam?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you insist that this passage is an exhaustive list of the only permitted food sources before the flood, does that mean at this time fish weren't allowed to eat anything?

Actually... you've got that wrong as well. Clearly, the corruption of the original design happened at the Fall, not the flood. The flood came as judgement on all flesh for that corruption.</font>[/QUOTE]I was talking about permitted food sources, which means what was allowed. According to Genesis, God changed what was permitted after the flood, not after the fall. Do you really dispute this?

If we know when death entered this world for man, then we know when death entered this world period.

Why? Why must animal death and human death enter the world at the same time, long after plant death? Why can't animal death and plant death be around from the beginning, and then human death come as a result of sin? For that matter, since Adam and Eve didn't die in the day they ate from the forbidden tree, isn't it also possible that spiritual death (separation from God) was the consequence of sin? You've made a distinction, but you haven't given any reason for it, aside from it being where you'd like the distinction to be made. I can draw arbitrary lines too, but I'd like to see some justification for why you draw the line on death where you do.

Clearly our bodies no longer function the way they were originally designed to. For example, Adam lived 930 years. Clearly people don't live that long anymore, so we can safely say that our bodies do not function in the same way as their's once did. Their bodies were clearly superior, and it makes sense, as there has been far more time for mutation and loss of information to effect our genomes.

Young-earth creationists used to say that Adam and his descendents "clearly" lived longer due to the higher oxygen content of the atmosphere, because of the vapor canopy, and other stuff like that. Now, it's "clearly" because they didn't have as many mutations in their genomes. Who knows what the reason will "clearly" be in the future? Wouldn't it be a little more humble to admit there's certain things the text doesn't address, and that all we can do is speculate?

So let me ask you a question. In a public school, what age does a child first hear that the earth is billions of years old and that we all came from monkeys?

I honestly don't know. I didn't hear about how humans and apes share a common ancestor until the eighth grade.

'well you see son, a few billion years ago there were no people, there was a pond full of goo. That goo eventually turned into little plants, which eventually turned into little animals... those animals grew and mutated and eventually turned into other animals... first from fish, then to frogs and lizards... then to birds and eventually monkeys turned into people.

How old do you have to be to understand that and believe it? Three years old maybe?

Since your description has errors and you're obviously much older and more intelligent than a three-year-old, I suppose an accurate answer would be "a bit older than you are."

Seriously, though, look how upset you are about evolution now. And that's a person in the 21st century who has unprecedented access (by historical standards) to scientific material. Imagine how they would have coped thousands of years ago!

My original statement was that God didn't reveal all the historical details of creation partially because "they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time that they'd overwhelm the actual message God was conveying". I think threads like this prove that point, since even with all our undeserved advantages, discussions about the science in the Bible still manages to overwhelm God's message for some people.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood."

Maybe you'll answer this. Which layers are preflood and which are post flood? Also, do you maintain that all animals were vegetarian before the flood as Gup20 does?

Details are never the friend of evolutionists. The claim about animals not killing - was NOT a claim about events up to the point of the Flood but rather a reference to the pre-fall pre-sin earth. </font>[/QUOTE]and

Simple: I observe their extinction and destruction as part of the flood event... Certain land animals were specific to the violence God describes in Genesis 6. They did not make it on the ark. No T-Rex with Noah.

Let me quote Gup20 here

So then, we can see that before the fall of Adam, God declares everything Good. There is no corruption of the creation... there is no violence in the creation... there is no death in the creation. Animals, for example didn't consume each other - only plants. Neither did man eat animals only plants... It wasn't until after the flood that man was told they could eat meat.

And maybe Genesis, again.

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

So, back to my original question. Do you maintain that all animals were vegetarian before the flood as Gup20 and many other young earthers do? If so, if they were not killing, exactly how were they violent?

No t-rex on the ark, eh? So, you disagree with many young earthers who assert that the behemoth in Job was a post Flood dinosaur, yes? You disagree with the words of Genesis that ALL animals were saved?

Mercury also pointed this out a few posts ago. This is very instructive. Gup20 was earlier claiming how the Bible never changes but that science is in constant flux. It is true that the Bible does not change. But as you see, even among young earthers, there is wide variety on how to properly interpret, and the differences are greatly magnified when you consider the full range of beliefs of creationists. The variety in science is paltry in comparison. Yet they are willing to unite with each other in the old idea that an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Their interpretations are widely varying and contradictory, as we can see in just these few examples, yet they insist that theirs is the only correct interpretation. Even though theirs contradicts the interpretation of the creationists next to them who has the same attitude. And even though it contradicts ALL of the evidence from the creation itself.

So Bob, were they vegetarian or not?

Which layers are preflood and which flood and which are postflood? You said yourself "Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood." Maybe you do believe that the correct chronological age can be determined for the fossil record. I'll have to keep this in mind.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I am simply observing - confessing - admittint that emperical science SHOWS that when we LOOK at creation we SEE that random chiral distributions DO NOT WORK for proteins used in all living cells."

Yes Bob, extant life all requires left handed proteins. Now where is you evidence that this has always been the case? You have none? Hmm. I am asserting that the left handed compounds today are the result of the development of a left handed enzyme to better make amino acids. I also assert the racemized mixtures can make proteins and that the only reason that these are not useful today is because of the advantage conferred to going to lefthanded only amino acids because of the efficiency of the enzyme to help make them.

Do you have any eveidence to show that life has always used only left handed proteins? Do you have any evidence to show that proteins (in general, they do not have to be able to be utilized by extant life) cannot be formed by a racemized mixture? No?

You have blustered around the edges and never actually made a point against what I assert. We all know that life today can only use left handed proteins. You are showing your willingness to deny without any actual facts to back you up.

 

[UTEOTW]

Part two of that is that atheist evolutionists ALSO admit that DECREASED entropy (in fact a MASSIVE decrease in entropy) is NEEDED to for th speculative proposal of a "molecules-to-human-brain sequence"

Oh Bob. Still avoiding the question I see.

Do you deny that thermodynamics allows for local decreases in entropy? If so, show your works and I'll nominate you myself for the Nobel Prize.

So thermo allows for local decreases in entropy. Life requires a local decrease in entropy. So what?

Please answer the question. What specifically does entropy prevent from happening and how? Simple question. You have long claimed that entropy poses a problem yet you have been silent on what problem it poses. Very instructive to the reader, BTW.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Notice that your argument is that the DETAILS of the Bible are not trustworthy."

No Bob, you fail to get the point.

I believe the Bible to be true. I think these guys were writing what they believed to be true about the world at the time. The Bible is not a book of science so I do not consider these to be errors. Maybe you do, I don't know. But you are putting words in my mouth to assert that I think the Bible to be untrustworthy or wrong.

The point being, there was a sampling of things where if you were to apply the rules on yourself that you are trying to apply to me, then you would have to believe these things. Afterall, the plain words call for a flat earth in which the sun goes around the earth and snow and hail are kept in storehouses for when they are needed. You do not believe any of this and it is not because of what else you can find in the Bible. That is the important point. You are perfectly willing to bring in outside knowledge and change the meaning of any text to be symbolic rather than literal when it suits you. It is justifed for you to go non-literal for these reasons but yet you condemn those who do the same.

It is very instructive that you did not deal with the point. You did not play by your rules and show that these things really mean what we know today using only other Biblical references. You instead put words into my mouth and then attacked that strawman you built.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

There is a classic peanuts cartoon where Linus and Lucy are viewing something on the sidewalk.

Lucy says its a dead ant. And its such a sad thing, because she was the queen ant.

Linus says wait a minute. That's a jelly bean!

Lucy says Hmmm, so it is.

Then the punch line: "I wonder how a jelly bean got to be queen?"

That is the reasoning of some of the creationists around here.

Scripture tells us that by one man death came to us all. The creationist first assumes that means death for animals as well as men, then uses the scripture that says this to prove death came to animals as a result of the fall of man.

Jesus says we were male and female "from the beginning". The creationist first assumes this means from the beginning of creation instead of from the beginning of mankind and then uses this to prove mankind was there at the beginning of creation.

That is the logic of the creationist position, circular. My interpretation is right, and I can prove it because my interpretation says so right there where it was interpreted to be right.

Hmmm. There must be some objective means for distinguishing between interpretations. Perhaps - we could evaluate the evidence?

I've got an idea. We all know it is possible to use DNA to discover who the real parents are. How about we use DNA to discover whether or not live is related and what species are more closely related each to the other?

 

[Gup20]

I was talking about permitted food sources, which means what was allowed. According to Genesis, God changed what was permitted after the flood, not after the fall. Do you really dispute this?

Are you insisting that fish are incapable of eating plants?

Why? Why must animal death and human death enter the world at the same time, long after plant death? Why can't animal death and plant death be around from the beginning, and then human death come as a result of sin?

Well for a couple of reasons. We were created as the 'head' of creation... just as Christ is the head of the body. If the head be cut off, the body cannot live without the head.

Also, up until Adam sinned, there was no death. God created things and declared them good. We see from the rest of the Bible that death is the physical result of sin.

Rom 5:12 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:

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

We see then, that death is evil and bad. It is certainly not something God would declare "Good". God declared all the days of creation good... for each animal group leading up to, and including the creation of man. How then, is there death before.

It seems inconsistent of you, being an evolutionist, to make any distinction between human and animal. While this also goes against the Bible, evolution proclaims that man is not a separate entity from animals, but that man is derived and evolved from animals. If, indeed, it were the case that evolution happened - and man is the apex of evolution from single cell organisms to animals to humans - then we are all one creature. There would be no real distinction between 'human death' and 'animal death'. In fact, humans are simply more evolved animals according to evolution. Therefore, the death which was the result of The Fall would still be the first point at which death entered into the animal gene pool.

Whether you believe the Bible or believe evolution, there is no getting around this. There was no death before the fall, and therefore no mechanism of 'selection'. Therefore, yet again, and even in evolutionist terms, evolution is impossible according to the Bible.

Wouldn't it be a little more humble to admit there's certain things the text doesn't address, and that all we can do is speculate?

Clearly, (how could I resist) we don't know everything as we are not God. However, there is an obvious difference between the life spans of Adam and his immediate progeny and the lifespans we see today. Therefore, while we can speculate on the reason, we can safely assume the Bible is true, and thusly, something is different between then and now biologically.

Since your description has errors and you're obviously much older and more intelligent than a three-year-old, I suppose an accurate answer would be "a bit older than you are."

An interesting way to sidestep the point. However it remains unchallenged. The fact of the matter is, you can 'dummy down' anything to the point of understanding with a 3 year old. There is no need to lie to them - why? Because regardless of whether or not they fully understand everything you say, they believe you. They have complete faith in what you say. Therefore, there is no reason to lie. There is no reason to make up something that didn't happen. A 3 year old has the ability to understand the concepts you are telling them if you say a fish turned into a beast which turned into a man. They may not understand how, or why, but they understand what you are saying, and believe you.

In the same way, God authored the Bible so that all men could understand. He gave the actual true account. He didn't distort the facts or truth. He accurately recounted it and expected that while we may not yet understand how or why we could see the exact 'what'. Even if we didn't understand it, we could believe by faith until we could understand it.

Nowhere in scripture does God even theoretically or remotely advocate evolution.

The heart of this issue is YOUR EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS that the Bible is untrue. You say it's untrue in Genesis... you imply that the multitude of verses in the Bible (literally thousands) that propagate the account of Genesis are untrue, and you don't believe the Bible to be truth. This is the problem, not our opposing scientific views.

What other portions of scripture are you willing to dismiss? Do yo think, for example, that healing is not for today? Do you think that the Holy Spirit no longer lives within us? Do you think that we can no longer talk with God? What other parts of scripture are you willing to dismiss because it doesn't agree with your humanistic worldview? You see, the foundation to the Bible is Genesis. Without a solid foundation, the house cannot stand. It is like the man who built his house on the rock and the man who built his house n the sand. If you allow genesis to be rendered a fairy tale, then you are open to dismissing anything in the whole of the Bible.

My original statement was that God didn't reveal all the historical details of creation partially because "they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time that they'd overwhelm the actual message God was conveying". I think threads like this prove that point, since even with all our undeserved advantages, discussions about the science in the Bible still manages to overwhelm God's message for some people.

So you don't think that Adam could have simply said "hey God.. you know yesterday, when you finished creating this world that I live on... how did you do that?" Or perhaps Adam was created with this knowledge. He was created with the ability for language, for example... why shouldn't he also be given this knowledge at creation and then teach that to his children when they asked. What child has never asked how the world came to be? Remember that Enoch walked so closely with God that God took him from the earth. Do you honestly think that people with access to God like that would never ask?

"they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time ..."

People believed at the time? There is absolutely no indication that people ever believed anything other than what God told them. In fact, had they believed a lie, God would have set the record straight, not incorporated a lie into his Holy, infallible Word.

So, back to my original question. Do you maintain that all animals were vegetarian before the flood as Gup20 and many other young earthers do? If so, if they were not killing, exactly how were they violent?

Uty - that's a misrepresentation. While we were told we could eat meat after the flood, that was part of the corruption of all flesh leading up to the flood. Meaning that animals and people were doing things that they were not supposed to do. They had corrupted the original design.

After the flood God tells Noah that he now has the liberty to eat animals as well as plants.

No t-rex on the ark, eh? So, you disagree with many young earthers who assert that the behemoth in Job was a post Flood dinosaur, yes? You disagree with the words of Genesis that ALL animals were saved?

I would maintain that there was T-Rex on the Ark. However, there was no need to bring a 'senior citizen' dinosaur. One as big as a sheep or cow would have sufficed. It would make no sense to take ancient dinosaurs, young adults would have been more likely and better suited to re-population. Also, you are forgetting the concept of "kinds". There may have been a master kind dinosaur from which T-Rex later speciated. So T-Rex may not have, in it's popular form, been on the ark. Furthermore, we can see that it was God's will and command that all animals eat plants. So any t-rex representative on the ark would have been a plant eater.

Do you agree that Noah and the Ark are a real event? That would be an interesting stance for an evolutionist.

Gup20 was earlier claiming how the Bible never changes but that science is in constant flux. It is true that the Bible does not change. But as you see, even among young earthers, there is wide variety on how to properly interpret, and the differences are greatly magnified when you consider the full range of beliefs of creationists.

Yet Bob and I agree that the Bible is true, whereas you do not. So we are both many billions of times closer to the truth that any evolutionist will ever be. Multiple theories and disagreements should be welcome for it serves to sharpen the truth as all avenues are explored. However, this should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS happen within the framework that the Bible is 100% true - which just so happens to be opposite of evolution.

I believe the Bible to be true. I think these guys were writing what they believed to be true about the world at the time.

These two sentences contradict one another, and this is what I have been trying to get you to see this entire thread. You believe the Bible is ultimately wrong because the guys writing it didn't know what you now know. You assert the Bible is true if we assume what we think to be more true than what is actually written. I believe the Bible is true just as it is written.

We agree that the plainest interpretation is young creation, yet you assert that this is simply because the men who penned the Bible didn't understand the truth as you claim now to do. This is quite sad.

In actuality, the Bible is true as it is written. It's infallible and ultimate and absolute truth. Nothing in it is wrong. Evolution tries to say otherwise.

This attitude has been seen before. Let me show you the author of your belief that God's word isn't true.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Satan's first tactic is to question the Word of God and it's authority/integrity/truth. He plants the question - questioning the Word of God.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Eve gets this right. She quotes the word of God to Satan - in it's plainest clearest sense.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Satan, faced with the Truth of God's word, has no recourse but to directly contradict God's word. This is the lie. How does he convince Eve of the lie? First by enticing eve with prideful thoughts (in this case again betraying God's word. Humanism is born here in the thought that we can be as God, controlling our own fate and destiny... deciding what is right and wrong for ourselves), and then by letting her physical senses (aka the evidence she can see) betray her.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Note that part of Eve's deception was in looking at the world around her, and the 'evidence' before her - that the fruit looked good for eating, so therefore it must be good. This also is a direct contradiction to God's Word. God said that it should not be eaten. Had she approached this fruit with the framework that God's word is true, her eyes would not have been deceived by the apparent 'goodness' of the fruit. She would have seen it for what it really was. This is EXACTLY the approach that YEC take. We first assume that God's word is true, and then we interpret what we see according to His Word.

In the same way as Eve, those who believe in evolution have been lied to by Satan. You have been fooled into first questioning God's word. You have then been fed a direct contradiction to God's word. You now have taken a humanistic look at the physical evidence and decided to believe the lie over God's word.

[ June 28, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Gup20 ]

 

[Gup20]

Hmmm. There must be some objective means for distinguishing between interpretations. Perhaps - we could evaluate the evidence?

So, like Eve, you are going to place the evidence of the world around you over the evidence of God's word? I would submit that is your first mistake. As with eve, we see that the Devil seeks to obscure the truth by taking your eyes off God's word, and focusing on the world outside of the framework of God's word.

Only within the framework of God's word can the truth about the things we see around us be revealed.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Tell me, Gup20, is this an absolute rule that all christians should obey, that is, only within the framework of God's word can the truth about the things we see around us be revealed? Are there no exceptions? Does this mean that if science teaches one thing and scripture teaches another that the scriptures are always correct?

( ) yes that's exactly what it means

( ) Oh, there are exceptions, mainly the science I personally accept but not the science I reject

 

[UTEOTW]

So, it boils down to this. We have our interpretations of the Bible and how to fit all the talk about death and sin and such into what we know about the world. You have a different interpretation. We now have several pages of back and forth where we each assert that our interpretations are correct and the others are incorrect. We are not God and therefore none of us can know for sure what He intended. We could go on like this for a while. But we do not have to. We have the direct evidence to which we can compare our assertions and see which is correct.

Gup20, you have said "In fact the world does not display these signs[old age and evolution]... they are manufactured by those who hate God and disbelieve the Bible."

First off, there are many, many scientists who also happen to be Christians. I can say with some certainty that these people do not "hate God." (I can even include myself in that group even though my work does not really relate to the age of the earth, or at least only barely. Coal does change with time so there is that on the periphery.) And you only reason for saying that they "disbelieve the Bible" is because you have a different interpretation than they. Furthermore, I doubt very seriously that there are many non-Christian scientists who do their work as an effort to discredit Christianity. SO I think you are attributing motive that does not exist. But that is not my point.

My point is that you claim that the Creation does not show signs of great age nor of evolution. Then prove it! You constantly claim that the evidence can be better interpreted through a young earth paradigm. Then prove it! In your intial round of posts, you made a strong effort to argue the physical evidence. Now in my opinion you did a poor job. I think most of you points were soundly refuted and many more points that I raised were poorly addressed or not addressed at all. Some of your ideas were off in what I like to call Last Thursdayism and have nothing about them that can either be supported or refuted. But it was an attempt and it was a much better attempt than has been seen in these parts since Helen quit visiting us regularly, so for that you are to be commended. But in this round, you are making a concerted effort to avoid the physical evidence all together. (I personally think there my be some coordination with Bob in this, but I don't know.) I think you see that the physical evidence does not go your way and you are trying to avoid it.

But if you really think the evidence is in your favor, then let's see it. There are many topics where you have the burden of not only showing that the mainstream interpretation is wrong, but also to give an interpretation that better fits the data. This is a tall order. But you apparently think that what you have seen on these topics fits that bill. SO let's see it. I have already thrown a number of topics into the ring, many left over from the first round of discussions. Have at it, if you please.

-----------------------------------------------
Now, a few random comments on the latest posts.

"Are you insisting that fish are incapable of eating plants?"

Well, let's go a little further with this. YOu claim that meat was not permitted until after the flood. THis would mean that all animals were vegetarian up to that point. I'll assert that many animals could not have survived without a carnivorous diet. They are very specially adapted to catching, eating, and digesting meat. Plants require a different set of traits, especially in the teeth and digestive tract. Some have even more specialized adaptations. Think of the ballen whales, swimming around filtering brine. Brine are small animals, shrimp to be specific. What would they have eaten?

I have seen your link to the vegetarian cat. Yawn. My dogs are naturally carnivorous and yet have a mostly vegetarian diet. Look at the ingredients in dog food. A lot of corn an wheat in there. Yet they do just fine. But it is a tightly controlled (as to what goes in) and very generous diet. They can afford to waste most of the plant matter that is undigestable. (If you do not believe this part, feed a dod some cracked corn for a few days and see what comes back out.) But this would never work in the wind. Wolves would not be able to make do with plant life. They can't "harvest" it, they cannot chew it, and they cannot digest enough of it. They are just not so equipped. Repeat this across the range of carnivores.

"If, indeed, it were the case that evolution happened - and man is the apex of evolution from single cell organisms to animals to humans - then we are all one creature. There would be no real distinction between 'human death' and 'animal death'. In fact, humans are simply more evolved animals according to evolution. Therefore, the death which was the result of The Fall would still be the first point at which death entered into the animal gene pool."

You are equivocating things again that are not equal. THis time not only equating spiritual death (Yes I know you have a different interpretation and lump physical and spiritual together.) with physical death, but also equating humans to the other forms of life. Humans are the only ones with a soul and a relationship with God.

"An interesting way to sidestep the point. However it remains unchallenged. The fact of the matter is, you can 'dummy down' anything to the point of understanding with a 3 year old. There is no need to lie to them - why? Because regardless of whether or not they fully understand everything you say, they believe you."

Everyone together now. The Bible is not a book of science. God choose not to tell about the great age of the earth. He also did not choose to correct their beliefs in a flat earth where the sun has a "curcuit" through the sky. It just was not important.

"Nowhere in scripture does God even theoretically or remotely advocate evolution."

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly."

"The heart of this issue is YOUR EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS that the Bible is untrue."

Not true at all!!! I only claim that you have the wrong interpretation. There is a difference between calling Gup20 wrong and God wrong. This is a slanderous way to debate, BTW. I think you have the wrong interpretation, and that your view does harm, yet I am not accusing YOU of disbelieving the Bible or calling God a liar. Can we keep this above board?

"What other portions of scripture are you willing to dismiss? Do yo think..."

This is the informal fallacy of the slippery slope. You are implying that because I disagree with you on a matter of interpretation that it follows that I will doubt matters of doctrine. That is not the case and you know it. It borders on a personal attack.

"In fact, had they believed a lie, God would have set the record straight, not incorporated a lie into his Holy, infallible Word."

They believed in a flat earth and He did not bother to correct them. It simply was not important.

The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is ancient and that all life is related through common descent. Yet that is not explicitly stated either. Maybe He did not consider that to be important knowledge, either.

"I would maintain that there was T-Rex on the Ark."

Good. You make my point. Bob says there was not. So even though you both claim to have the right interpretation, you have different ones. Who is right? You claimed earlier that science changes and the Bible does not. The Bible does not, but man's interpretation does. Here two young earthers have incompatible interpretations. Yet I doubt that either of you will take the time to correct the other nor realize that you might both be wrong.

"However, there was no need to bring a 'senior citizen' dinosaur. One as big as a sheep or cow would have sufficed. It would make no sense to take ancient dinosaurs, young adults would have been more likely and better suited to re-population. Also, you are forgetting the concept of "kinds". There may have been a master kind dinosaur from which T-Rex later speciated. So T-Rex may not have, in it's popular form, been on the ark. Furthermore, we can see that it was God's will and command that all animals eat plants. So any t-rex representative on the ark would have been a plant eater."

I am not sure what you are objecting to here. I think you are arguing a different point than what was before the group. It is interesting that you launch straight into pure speculation without even being prompted. Just how would T. rex have eaten plants with those teeth of his. No mastication at all. Do you have any shread of evidence for a "master kind" of dinosaur? No. And young earthers accuse us of doing these things.

"Yet Bob and I agree that the Bible is true, whereas you do not.

Nope. I agree the Bible is true. I think you are wrong. Big difference.

"So we are both many billions of times closer to the truth that any evolutionist will ever be."

Well, since your premise above was wrong, this may be too.

------------------------------------

So, you want to start on some of those topics we have open?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
It seems inconsistent of you, being an evolutionist, to make any distinction between human and animal. While this also goes against the Bible, evolution proclaims that man is not a separate entity from animals, but that man is derived and evolved from animals.

First off, I agree with how UTEOTW has responded to this, and I'll quote his conclusion:

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Humans are the only ones with a soul and a relationship with God.

I think it's very interesting the way this is turning out. Those of us Christians who accept evolution believe that humans are very different from both animal and plant life -- because humans, and only humans, are made in God's image. Obviously this doesn't refer to our physical body (God is spirit, after all), but God has given us a spirit (or a soul, depending on how you define the word) and a way to have relationship with him that is unlike what plants and animals have.

On the other hand, the young-earth creationists are claiming that the real division is between those creatures who have "the breath of life" (birds, whales, land animals, and humans) and those living things that don't (plants, insects, single-celled organisms, and perhaps fish).

Now, I think this should be instructive. Gup20 claims that accepting evolution must lead to a Christian not seeing any distinction between human life and animal life. And yet, if this thread is any indication, the "evolutionists" have a higher view of human life than the young-earth creationists! In their attempt to claim that animal death before the fall is impossible, the YECs have sacrificed the huge difference the Bible states exists between humans and animals!

 

[Mercury]

Now, here's a positive case for animal death being part of God's original plan for the world. Psalm 104 is a creation psalm. It tells of God's work in creating and sustaining the world. It's best to read the whole thing to get the full context, but I'm going to just deal with a portion of it:

14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate --
bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.
16 The trees of the LORD are well watered,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 There the birds make their nests;
the stork has its home in the pine trees.
18 The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
the crags are a refuge for the coneys.

19 The moon marks off the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then man goes out to his work,
to his labor until evening.

24 How many are your works, O LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number-
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

27 These all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.

This passage shows that God is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); that God made all things, including these lions, in his wisdom (v.24); that animals, whether carnivorous or otherwise, ultimately get their food and sustenance from God (v.27); and that lions who roar for their prey are satisfied with "good things" from God (v.28).

I think that to claim that God couldn't look over a creation where animals prey on each other and declare it "very good" simply shows that one sees things differently than God.

 

[BobRyan]

In other texts we have God calling the Babylonians to attack Israel.

By missing the context (post fall of mankind) you miss the point.

In Christ,

Bob