There's as much substance to that as there is to your assertions about vegetarianism before the Flood.
"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
quote:Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Adam: "What is meat?" God: "Y'know...it's dead animals that are eaten." Adam: "Eh? We don't eat dead animals!" God: "Well, if you did you would call it 'meat'." Adam: "So...you meant 'food' not 'meat' - like it says in other translations." God: "Yeah - I guess so. My mistake."
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
Funny how you guys go on and on about what you imagine to be creationist errors and never address the glaring stupidity of evolutionist interpretations of the strata, their amazingly knife-edge close interfaces with each other and their flat-topped horizontality as seen for instance in the Grand Canyon, plus of course their being completely separated discrete sediments. Attributing such a formation to long ages is ludicrous but you all just gloss it over or apply your weird made up Rube Goldbergish explanations.
I don't think you're getting it. Let's try a little role reversal.
Take a look at these layers of paint:
My new position, now, is that all of those paints were mixed together and landed onto the surface in one big pour. Then they settled out into their different colors and formed the layers that you see.
Your new position, now, is that each layer was laid down individually over a period of time. (Surely you can agree that's true, no?)
How would you argue against my position and for yours? How would you explain that they were not put down together all at once?
What makes you so sure of that? If they all got buried at a certain depth, which you all agree they did, then why would any bone escape that burial? And if it did, why wouldn't it have rotted away by now anyway, which the human bodies no doubt did.
If that was true, then we would have fossilized human bones along side the fossilized dino ones. But we don't, because that never happened.
It's impossible for The Flood to have fossilized just some of the bones from animals that all existed at the same place at the same time. If humans and dinosaurs were together, then we'd have human bones fossilized with dinosaur bones, and we'd have unfossilized dinosaur bones with the unfossilized human bones. But we don't see any of that anywhere at all.
Because it's a dumb idea.
But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer. How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages?
Whoa whoa whoa.... You don't get to just say "that's dumb" and then Gish Gallop over to attacking the opposition.
We've got a scenario where humans and dinos lived around the same places at the same time. Then a big flood comes in. Now, you're saying that all the dinos got buried real deep but not a single human did. How would the waters or sediments or whatever, distiguish between a dino and human and know to bury one and not the other?
One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.
Well, so much for Sola Scriptura. I knew you didn't really follow that one, rather you only claim to when its convenient.
But I don't have a problem with them cohabiting, per se. You're the one who was saying they didn't live very near to each other.
Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era? [...] Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it
Thanks for admitting that. Did all these other species have the same hydrodynamic properties as nautiloids?
... but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature. How could that have happened according to your illustrious theory?
Because large shells survive decay better than, for example, fish.
Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle.
Although somehow this process forgot to hydraulically sort the actual sediments. Laws of nature can be kind of absent-minded like that. However, it did remember its main task, which was to arrange the fauna in the sediment in such a way as to deceive evolutionists.
quote: Animal sacrifice was done before the Flood but Genesis 9:3 implies that meat was not eaten until after.
And the use of animal sacrifice - which specifically includes cooking the meat - implies that meat was eaten then (indeed, the raising of sheep tends to imply it, too). Genesis 9:3 records the giving of permission but that doesn't necessarily imply that there was no earlier permission - for instance eating the meat left over from the sacrifice might be allowed even if eating meat at other times was forbidden.
As I said, it's ambiguous and all the arguments on both sides are based on implications which are not terribly strong. And that's for the humans! For animals there is no explicit grant of permission to eat meat.
quote: The fact that plants were given to all animals and people at Creation, plus the description of Eden as a garden, plus the description of mists watering the planet, all add up to a picture of a lush environment that obviously no longer exists planet-wide, and probably in a small way only in isolated jungle areas.
And Gods curse in Genesis 3:17-19 says that it will be hard work growing sufficient food. I really think that an explicit statement takes precedence over speculation.
quote: OK, if there is uncontrovertible fossil evidence of predation then apparently animals ate meat before the Flood. I'll accept that.
That really wasn't the point I wanted to bring up. My intent was to point out - yet again - that there is a distinction between the Bible and imaginative scenarios derived from it. Please try to avoid confusing them in the future.
Edited by PaulK, : Corrected weird iPad spelling "correction:
So jump on your pet dinosaur and cry to Percy. better yet, cry to moose since he is so sympathetic to the dumb shit you creationists say. I don't really give a fuck. This is free for all and you are seriously entertaining the notion that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
Now, you're saying that all the dinos got buried real deep but not a single human did.
Not a single human, or rhino, or elephant, or lion, etc.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass