The gentic inheritance of sin - if it is true what are the consequences?

What about fish and other sea life? Did they eat each other? Were insects, fish, frogs, worms, crab, and shell fish eaten?lfen

i'm sorry. what?Edited by arachnophilia, : ....what?

---

If there was no death at all, then of course not. There's plenty of sea flora for them to eat.

One possible scenario: There was some kind of cat in Eden, but it may not have been a lion. It's possible there was more than one cat Kind. But assuming the one Kind, all other cats came from it, whatever it was. It must have eaten plants. It was endowed with tons of genetic possibilities.Thanks to that, it would have (micro)evolved into all kinds of interesting cats under any circumstances, but after the Fall when death entered, and therefore natural selection, meat-eating types developed or (micro) evolved from that original Kind.I picture a gradual change from plant-eating types of all kinds of animals to meat-eating types over a few hundred years. Not millions of years.By the time of the Flood there were many varieties of cat, including the sabre-toothed tiger, which became extinct when the flood waters drowned and preserved some frozen in the far north. There were also the mammoths and other extravagant creatures that all died out in the FLood.What was preserved on the ark was a representative of each kind. An elephant but not necessariy a mammoth. A cat or a number of cats -- it depends on what a Kind is -- but not the sabre-toothed.Etc.It hangs together. Think about it.Edited by Faith, : grammar

moved to proposed new topicsEdited by arachnophilia, : typoEdited by arachnophilia, : post moved to pnt

---

Why don't you go start that other thread. Your thoughts strike me as completely irrelevant.As I said, ANIMALS WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN. All your speculations based on what exists now are IRRELEVANT.{Edit: If we are promised that at the end of time "the lion will lie down with the lamb" why should lions or cats of any kind in Eden be carnivorous either?}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

fine. moved. thank you.Edited by AdminNWR, : update link

---

wait for the new thread, faith. argue it there.

Faith,It hangs together as a story, a thought experiment as long as you don't examine the evidence gathered by biologists and botanist and geologists.I've taken this back to the library so can't quote from it but it's a very readable well done overview by someone qualified in the field.The story of life
Author : Southwood, Richard, Sir.
Publisher, Date : Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2003.
Richard Southwood - WikipediaSouthwood pointed out that plants were slower to develop than animals and that eating plants is a late developement as it's more difficult and more complex to get energy from plant sources than from other animals. I'm not talking about the big splashy predators but simply things like simple single cells, or even multi cell animals.The need for shells such as in trilobites seems a clear indication that predation was going on very early. It's nice to think that animals didn't eat animals. Nice thought that it might be the evidence is simply that eating animals came first and only later as more plants developed and animals developed the dentation and the elaborate guts to process cellulose did plant eating emerge.Coming up with scenarios is good but then the scenario has to be subjected to the evidence or it remains just a though possibility.lfen

lfen, nwr pushed my thread through pretty fast... feel free to contribute this there.

There IS no scientific evidence that penetrates before the time of the Flood or the Fall.It is all denied by science. The fossils are interpreted as having been laid down over millions of years instead of in the one event of a Flood, etc. etc. etc. All the theories about the development of life are based on such assumptions.As a YEC I deny all that in turn. There is no point in trying to make me submit to the theories about anything prior to 4500 years ago. Science is looking elsewhere than creationists look, and what you quoted is merely applying their usual assumptions, which creationists deny. I think from what the Bible says. I've said all I know about it already and the answers from science are simply irrelevant. They are from some other frame of reference.As I say in #111 there is no reason to think cats were carnivorous before the Fall because we are promised a time in the future when they will not be. Science simply cannot cope with the implications of the Fall and the Flood because it flat-out denies it.{Edit: If you claim that is merely figurative I think it is both figurative and literal, and this one the same: Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.}Science assumes that shells must have developed to ward off carnivorous predators. That can of course be a possible explanation, {edit: since predation did begin after the Fall as I've said}, but it could also just be a design factor. The variety of life on this planet suggests sheer creative exuberance to my mind. There doesn't need to be a reason based on survival for any particular living form. That's built on the assumptions of evolution which a creationist denies.So why try to convince me of this completely contrary scenario? Now Arach has started a thread to insult and berate me as usual because I do not accept science's evolutionist and uniformitarian presuppositions. I am not going there. I'm telling you what I'm able to imagine based on the Bible, and that's it. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

my thread calls your claim "inane" and "absurd." feel free to demonstrate that your claims are not inane (by way of being ad-hoc) or absurd (by way of being illogical). and feel free to defend yourself against my claim that your are ignorant of science by demonstrating your knowledge of it. or, shall you prove my point about irreverence?but do it there. ignoring the thread whose purpose is to address the claim you bring up, in favor of continuing an off-topic rant in another thread -- and refusing to participate because all opposition is "insulting" and "berating" is childish and immature.especially when you've been waving off logic left and right by calling people's points rambling and irrelevant. yes, imagining. that's what ad-hoc means.

---

Unwillingness to look at and address the evidence leaves you in the enviable position of imagining the world however you wish. I personally can't take an imaginary religion seriously though.lfen

I am limited by my understanding of the Bible. I am not just imagining anything that happens to appeal to me. And I explained why what you are calling evidence is not evidence.I don't care whether you take it seriously as long as it is seen for what it is and recognized as unanswerable by evolutionist science. Beyond that I would rather avoid the usual insults based on my not seeing things the way evolutionists do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

go debate that in the appropriate thread. this song and dance routine ain't helping either.

---