What kind of teeth...

[Helen]

In response to the opening post: we tend to think of vegetarian animals as chewing grass. This is not so. Grazing animals, yes, but consider the nut eaters. Squirrels have very sharp teeth, so do grain-eating rats and mice. Even our guinea pig can have a mean bite if afraid of attack. If the protein sources in plants before the Flood were primarily in nuts or even just under the bark of some plants, very sharp teeth would have been needed to get to the 'meat' needed. Consider today how the walrus, for instance, uses his tusks.

There did not need to be any change in either the digestive tracts or the teeth of those animals that eat meat today if the protein sources before the Flood were in plants which were tough to get to in terms of fiber and/or shells.

MP, you seem to be having as much trouble here as you did with plasma science. Grasshopper, you seem to be having a problem, too, with mockery.

 

[webdog]

Helen, if carnivors were created with teeth made for ripping and tearing flesh, wouldn't they have been created with that purpose intended? I realize those kind of teeth CAN eat vegetation, but to me it seems like that would have been a less than perfect creation scenario, if a perfect creation was intended to eat plant life.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In response to the opening post: we tend to think of vegetarian animals as chewing grass. This is not so. Grazing animals, yes, but consider the nut eaters. Squirrels have very sharp teeth, so do grain-eating rats and mice. Even our guinea pig can have a mean bite if afraid of attack. If the protein sources in plants before the Flood were primarily in nuts or even just under the bark of some plants, very sharp teeth would have been needed to get to the 'meat' needed. Consider today how the walrus, for instance, uses his tusks.

There did not need to be any change in either the digestive tracts or the teeth of those animals that eat meat today if the protein sources before the Flood were in plants which were tough to get to in terms of fiber and/or shells.

MP, you seem to be having as much trouble here as you did with plasma science. Grasshopper, you seem to be having a problem, too, with mockery.

No problem at all Helen. Point to me where scripture supports the idea that animals became carnivores suddenly after the so-called "fall". Webdog has been unable to do so.

As for problems, if you would extricate yourself from your total absorbtion in the pseudoscience that you and Barry have immersed yourselves in, and actually join the scientific community and not ministries that masquerade as science groups, you might learn something as well.

 

[webdog]

I always thought animals were given for food after the flood...not the fall. Would probably be the reason there is no Scirpture stating animals could be eaten after the "so-called fall" (whatever is so-called...who knows).

 

[Helen]

I always thought animals were given for food after the flood...not the fall. Would probably be the reason there is no Scirpture stating animals could be eaten after the "so-called fall" ....

Exactly, webdog.

As far as the teeth go, and ripping and tearing flesh: The teeth are designed for ripping and tearing, true. And they can happen with flesh or bark or nut hulls....

As I mentioned in the other thread, cats appear to be the only land animals that are almost totally carnivorous. Bears, dogs, etc. not only eat vegetation, they need it. And they tear and gulp it just the way they do meat. And different dogs prefer different amounts. Dusty, our shepherd/rottweiler/lab/retriever loves grass, salads, fruits and a lot of vegetables. Tia turns up her nose at just about anything but dog food or dog biscuits or meat scraps. But Dusty is a regular vacuum cleaner where anything edible is concerned. He loves the alfalfa/molasses mix that drops on the barn floor and they all love the senior horse feed grains. Go figure...

And their teeth are meant for ripping and tearing...

So it's only the cats that I am aware of as being a problem here. And we know that cats at least love catnip....what they loved before the Flood I don't know, but I know that it required the teeth that they have.

...............

Magnetic Poles -- suggest you go call Anthony Peratt a bogus scientist to his face and then see where that gets you....

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Magnetic Poles -- suggest you go call Anthony Peratt a bogus scientist to his face and then see where that gets you....

If I thought he was, I would have no problem doing so. I do know he is an electrical engineer. Does that make him qualified to posit theories of cosmology as an expert?

BTW, your referencing plasma cosmology as the "latest" thing, it isn't. It is a non-standard, little accepted cosmology that has been around for at least 50 years.

 

[Helen]

MP, quit trying to derail the thread. This is about teeth, and your posts lack them.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MP, quit trying to derail the thread. This is about teeth, and your posts lack them.

So replying to your comment is a derail? It would seem the person posing the derailing comment is the derailer.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And still, no one can give scriptural evidence that there were no carnivores in pre-fall times.

 

[Amy.G]

And still, no one can give scriptural evidence that there were no carnivores in pre-fall times.

Maybe if Genesis 1:30 read:

Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb (and each other) for food"....,

we might be able to say that animals were carnivores from the beginning. But, since the Bible doesn't mention eating meat until after the flood, it seems more likely that only vegetation was food for both man and beast.

As far as proof in scripture that animals were not carnivores pre fall/flood, I don't think we'll find it. But, the evidence in scripture seems to say they were vegetarians until after the flood.