At 10:08 AM 9/29/98 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>The present world certainly does bear witness of effects of thorns,
>predation, parasitism, pathogenicity, etc. This is apparent even apart
>from man's mismanagement of things, tho much increased by man's actions
>now. What do you believe was the origin of this? When was it that "the
>creature was made subject to vanity"?
I do believe that the vanity spoken of in Romans occurred at the Fall.
Because the crown of creation could no longer fulfill the purpose he was
designed for, the creation couldn't either. As to thorns, themselves and
parasitism, there is ample fossil evidence for animals eating on other
animals throughout the fossil record. Clionid sponges and starfish are
found eating and boring through clams for a long long time. This is why I
find it hard to accept that there was no death before the fall AND an old
earth. That is why I think it is important to note that God pronounced the
creation 'good' not 'perfect'.
>
> There are lots
>>of other implications of the fall that affected animals. Thorns affect
>>animals and the Bible says that thorns were added to the earth at that time
>>(according to young-earth theology).
>>
>
>Yes. It is interesting to me as a botanist that Genesis 3:18 specifically
>notes that thorns would come. I looked up how they form in plants, and
>they are clearly results of degeneration -- branch buds which have aborted
>and sclerified, leaf veins that have sclerified with loss of surrounding
>leaf mesophyll, non-productive growths on stem epidermis, etc.
But one might limit the thorn problem to the post fall agricultural scene
rather than expanding that curse to require that there were no thorns prior
to the creation of man, which geologically occured quite late.
>
>>>>creation of reproductive abilities for the animals argues against a
>>>>deathless world. Why would animals need to reproduce if they weren't
going
>>>>to die?
>>>
>>>I think He knows why.
>>
>>Why do you think that?
>
>Because I believe He knows all things!
>
Oh. I do to. But I thought you might have some explanation for this. :-)
> reproduction, leads to overpopulation or to a
>>population that must die. Plants are a limited resource and 100
>>quadrillion cattle would eat everything on earth.
>>
>
>The first animals were invited to multiply and fill the earth. Apparently
>it was not filled from the beginning. If they had filled it peacefully,
>perhaps there was a planned place where they could go and continue to grow.
>But it became filled, with violence (Gen.6:13). That took care of the
>population growth, but it was reason to groan.
Actually, we don't know that it wasn't fulfilled. We know mankind didn't
have children until after the fall. But that doesn't mean that the animals
didn't fill the earth. What I mean is that we have no idea how long adam
and eve stayed sinless.
>
>
>
>>And when a cow chomped on grass, he would pick up insects like ants,
>>grasshoppers, aphids etc and chew them up. Are you asserting that insects
>>could withstand the several thousand pounds per square inch pressure
>>exerted by bovine teeth, could be swallowed, dipped in the gastric juices
>>of 4 stomachs and then excreted in dung and live to tell about it? This is
>>what you must believe if you hold that animals didn't die before the fall.
>>
>
>I don't know how many ants, grasshoppers, and aphids were in the original
>earth, whether they would be plentiful enough to be around on the grass
>that the herbivores ate. I don't know how careful the herbivores were when
>they ate. I believe they did not have to eat as much as they do now,
>because their metabolism was very good, and the food was fully nutritious.
Can I ask what the basis for this belief in a good metabolism is? The
Bible certainly doesn't discuss metabolism. Does this belief come from the
'good' creation declaration? If so, I would remind you that the creation
wasn't perfect. God didn't use Tamiym
>
>
>>Could an elephant step on an ant which was walking across a stone surface
>>and not squash the ant?
>
>I don't know if there were any stone surfaces.
OK, a dirt surface. I think an ant would die if an elephant stepped on
him in the mud. I know I would.
>
> Chitin only has so much strength and an elephant's
>>weight would exceed that strength. So, how do you account for this? Was
>>chitin stronger before the fall? Were ants really superants( kinda like
>>fire ants) before the fall?
>>
>I don't know.
I appreciate the honesty here. It is this type of belief that caused me
lots of problems dealing with the idea of no death before the fall. Such a
belief required that I think of the world like a roadrunner cartoon, where
Wiley Coyote falls off the cliff, has an anvil land on his head, dynamite
explode in his face and he gets up and goes after the roadrunner again. I
found that to be a disturbing view of reality given the physical strength
of materials.
>>>
>>> It is as easy for God to create 10 billion cattle as two and if
>>>>they weren't going to die, He easily could have produced 10 billion
sexless
>>>>cows and been done with it.
>>>
>>>But He didn't!
>>
>>I contend that He didn't because cattle were dying of old age and needed to
>>be replaced.
>>
>I believe He had something to show us about generation and regeneration,
>apart from death. But when death came, multiplication served to replace
>those lost, still teaching us about generation and regeneration.
So, did God plan for us to sin? I mean, if God planned ahead for sex and
reproduction, did God not only know, but intend for us to sin? the Bible
tells us in romans13:14
14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the
flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
If we aren't supposed to make provision for the flesh, why did God do it in
Eden?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm