Meat-eaters Naturally Selected after the Fall

Rightw/god posted a message on the meat-eaters thread where he says: "Gosh! I keep thinking of stuff. with the eating grass part. God created all animals to be vegetarian. it was only after the fall that competition for survival began."http://EvC Forum: The relevence of Biblical claims to science -->EvC Forum: The relevence of Biblical claims to scienceHe says he is out of town until the weekend but I can't post on science forums anyway (absurdly for having violated scientific standards in a non-science forum but I digress), so I thought I'd put in my two cents' worth as a new topic, possibly to be pursued in the Theological Creationism forum or the Coffee House.About a week ago, having seen the topic of that thread but not having read through it, I prayed about the question of meat-eaters just for my own understanding, and God showed me the same thing rightw/god said, which I discovered later -- that the meat-eating abilities of animals developed after the Fall.Of course this must be the case. The idea is that each Kind was created with an immense genetic capacity for variation, which is why we have so many varieties of dogs and cats for small instance, although the original genetic capacity was much much greater than anything we actually see now.For the purpose of the thread about the meat-eaters, the horns and fangs and other capacities of meat-eating animals were genetic variations that came to the fore through Natural Selection after the Fall. That is, death entered with the Fall, and with death came Natural Selection, promoting the survival or increase of varieties that have the capacity to survive in the new environment over those that don't. Gradually the varieties that could not survive would die out, and among the varieties that became meat-eaters, the ones that did survive would be the ones that had the capacity to kill and digest other animals, with all the adaptations they needed for that purpose. Defensive abilities would be another variation that some animals would develop as well through Natural Selection.(I've come to understand that many things happened to the earth at the Fall, having to do with God's cursing it for our sake, and that includes the bombardment by meteors that is evident on the moon but not evident on earth -- probably because the Flood erased the craters (I had thought that bombardment must have occurred during the Flood but I believe now it was part of the cursing of the creation with the Fall), and this cursing also includes the "ice age" which explains the development of the wooly mammoth too, as well as that beast's huge tusks and the sabre-toothed tiger and the like for the purpose of defense or killing prey.)Anyway, I was glad to see rightw/god say how he "keep[s] thinking of stuff" because that happens to me too when I tackle the creationism-evolutionism questions, especially if I've been praying, and in this case I specifically prayed for insight and God gave it, and it turns out He gave me the same understanding He gave rightw/god with some details as well.Certainly this has none of the features you want on a Science forum, but it is how a Biblical Creationist thinks, so perhaps it could be discussed on that side of the Great Divide.

Hi Faith,I think the [forum=-34] forum would be appropriate. Do you agree?About this part: I think you're right that the loss of your privileges in the science forums occurred for the wrong reason, but it's probably for the best. About your solution for the origin of meat-eaters, inspiration comes from prayer, evidence comes from research. Inspiration might provide a sufficient answer as a matter of faith, but scientific understanding develops from evidence.Once you have evidence, that is often only the beginning of the story, for interpretation of the evidence is a significant task. There will be differences in interpretation. Some will think some evidence most important, while others will disagree and think other evidence more imporant. Multiple scenarios might fit the same evidence. The debate is only settled when tests are developed that provide different answers for different scenarios or interpretations. This is all part and parcel of the process of science. But without evidence, this process cannot proceed. Without evidence there is no science, only speculation.The inability or unwillingness to accept the importance and central role of evidence in science is the primary reason why Creationism is so dangerous an idea, because it would introduce concepts to the science classroom that are without scientific support. I know you aren't yourself advocating teaching Creationism in public schools, but when you think about the kind of education you want in your schools you might consider that the definition of science is not a function of religious faith. Teaching Creationism in your science classes does not magically create evidence, and as long as it is absent of evidence Creationism cannot be science, no matter where it is taught. Inspiration is fine, but once you find the evidence, then you're doing science.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well, Percy, this being the PNT thread it's probably not the place to answer you, but nobody is proposing teaching science without evidence or DOING science without evidence. Creationist schools as well as homeschooling parents use programs that teach basic science projects and experiments. Most elementary science can be done without any reference whatever to the ToE, or even Creationism for that matter. You can do basic chemistry without reference to either theory, and basic biology that studies how organisms work, including basic genetics, and basic geology, recognizing rocks and formations and their chemistry, all that without appealing to either Evolutionism or Creationism. Darwin is read in seventh grade in one popular Christian homeschooling program, and the controversy is presented for discussion at that point.AND I am not proposing prayer as a substitute for evidence. If you want to call it inspiration, fine, that's what we're doing, getting inspired, seeing which direction to look in FOR that evidence that is required. I can't find the post at the moment, maybe in fact it was on another thread than the one I've linked here, but this idea that both rightw/god and I have arrived at independently answers a purely speculative point made by someone else, which shouldn't require evidence in reply since it's merely one logical speculation against another. That challenge was that the existence of carnivores disproves the idea that death didn't exist until the Fall and that animals were originally created vegetarian. Such a declaration doesn't call for anything more than the answer both rightw/god and I arrived at, a logical explanation for how they were originally created vegetarian and yet able to develop defensive and predatory variations when it became necessary.Actually, it turns out I won't have time to pursue this thread in any case, so I'll request that you cancel it instead of promoting it.Thanks,
Faith