The flood, and meat eating.

First of all, it is not just teeth we are talking about. Carnivores have a whole different digestive system from herbivores. In general, herbivores have a longer and more complex gut as well as some type of grinding mechanism - molars or a gizzard. Carnivores on the other hand have canine type teeth or fangs for killing prey and tearing flesh and a relatively short fatter gut. Omnivores, like humans, have both. We have canine teeth and molars, a long gut (small intestine) and a shorter fatter gut (large intestine).Now there is also an internal problem in Genesis itself with the "man didn't eat meat until after the flood" thesis. Remember Cain and Abel and why Cain got mad at Abel? Cain was a tiller of the ground and Abel was a keeper of sheep. They both brought offerings to God and Cain's offering was rejected while Abel's was accepted by God."And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."Now why was Abel keeping sheep and killing them if he wasn't eating them? You could say he just wanted the skins or that he wanted them for milk. But that would be a stretch, imo.As for the passage allowing Noah to eat all of the animals of the earth, one could just as well argue that this was a special dispensation to eat "unclean" as well as "clean" animals because of a general food shortage after the flood. Also remember that Noah was told to bring more of the "clean" animals unto the ark in the first place. Why distinguish between "clean" and "unclean" if eating them wasn't contemplated? Actually this whole clean/unclean business is evidence that the flood story was constructed with the knowledge of later events because the dietary laws didn't come until much later - when Moses was in the wilderness with the Israelites. So the unclean/clean animals in the ark are something of an anachronism - meaning the Genesis flood story was probably written at about the same time as Deuteronomy - calling into question its historical accuracy.

"God originally created man to only eat plants"Then why the canine teeth and gut adaptations for meat eating as well as herbivory? Animals with digestive systems adapted solely for herbivory are going to get seriously messed up and probably die it they eat any significant amount of meat.

"Light, for example, can exist as a wave or a particle"This is not quite true. Light does BEHAVE as both a wave and a particle, that is true. However, a particle implies matter and matter has mass. Light "particles" (photons) have no mass, as light is a form of energy. According to Einstein's equation, energy can be turned into matter just as matter can be turned into energy. Therefore it should be possible to transform light into matter - but then it would no longer be light. This is all of course quite off topic.Now , as to the original question about meat eating.....
How is it that you can just assume that the digestive system of man was changed to accomodate meat eating - POOF - just like that? When did this happen, and more importantly - WHY did it happen? The logic is not there, imo. The Fall of man is associated with the beginning of agriculture. Man went from gatherer/hunter to tiller/herder. The need to be able to eat meat is the same (actually less in more fertile areas with tillable land). Where does it say in the Bible that man did not eat meat before the Fall and where does it say he was changed - POOF - to be able to eat meat after the Fall? I find it really annoying that Biblical literalists want to "add stuff" to make the Biblical narrative fit their model when necessary. Thus we have the YEC's proclaiming that man did not eat meat before the Fall, that carnivores were herbivores on the Ark, that dinosaurs were taken on the Ark as juveniles (even though the Biblical narrative suggests nothing of the kind)- all "just so" stories to make the Biblical narrative fit into modern understanding of reality. Further, I find it interesting to see when Biblical literalists decide a miracle is needed - whenever there is a GAP with reality ..... hmmm, if it weren't for science and the explorers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Biblical literalists would still be insisting that the earth is flat and the sun moves over the earth. Think about it. END OF RANT.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.This is the text. Note that it says nothing about death being absent in the world - even for Adam himself, let alone the animals. It just says "if you eat from this tree you will die." If I say to you, "you will die if you eat castor beans" that doesn't mean you won't also die if you walk out in front of a bus. The "no death/carnivores" in the Garden of Eden is simply faulty logic. Furthermore, how does Adam even know what "death" is if it does not exist up to this point? There is no life without death. Do you think you would be alive today (or any human or other form of life) without death? Think about it.More evidence from the Genesis text.Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.OK - here a distinction is made between cattle and beasts of the field. What were those cattle all about? What is the purpose of having cattle? I don't know about you but where I come from and everywhere I have been in the world (ok, I haven't been to India), people EAT cattle. If you are going to be a literalist, than be a literalist. Don't add "stuff". You simply cannot get Adam as a vegetarian from the Bible. It says he was given plants to eat, yes -it does not say he didn't also eat animals. It also does not say there was no physical death before the Fall. That is a fundamentalist heresy, in my opinion.Edit: I didn't say you were a YEC. I said that YECs make claims
that have no basis in the Biblical text. Here is what I said,"Thus we have the YEC's proclaiming that man did not eat meat before the Fall, that carnivores were herbivores on the Ark, that dinosaurs were taken on the Ark as juveniles" - If the shoe fits.....Also, even if it were true that evolutionist scenarios are "just so" stories, which it isn't - that would not make the YEC "just so" stories any more valid. That is a logical fallacy in and of itself.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-27-2005 12:16 PM

If you agree that cattle are for meat, how can you turn around and say that Paul's statement means there was no physical death before the Fall? Besides, you still haven't explained the logic of how life can exist without physical death? If there were no death, how long do you think it would have taken to fill up the world with say, fruit flies? Or mice? Rabbits? Or do you think the "no death" clause just applied to mammals with long gestation periods?

"Also, cattle are also used to plow fields and for milk. Nonetheless, it does seem odd to speak of cattle for the garden.
An explanation could well just be they were not at that time used for meat or to plow fields, but became that way later."Hmm, I always thought that tillage came as a consequence of the fall. "cursed be the ground....thorns and thistles....sweat of thy brow......" what was that all about?But now we are adding to the text again, aren't we? Don't you ever find it just a little tiring being a literalist?

"As far as cattle, they existed at some point as wild animals, right?
Or not?
Either way, the fact they are for meat now does not preclude the idea they could have existed just as animals."It says "cattle" and distinguishes them from "beasts of the field".
Come on. You are being deliberately dense here. When do you think Genesis was written? After the Fall, for sure. And at a time when the term "cattle" meant a domestic animal - of which one use was meat. You don't think an important detail like that (no eating meat) would have been spelled out in the Garden of Eden rule book?"On reproduction, there could well have been a far lower rate originally, which incidentally fits well with the original longer lifespans after the Fall."Ok, there you go again. Adding to the text. The command was to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" You don't multiply and replenish the earth unless you are reproducing and your offspring are reproducing. But nobody dies so how do you magically slow down the reproduction rate to keep from overpopulating the earth? (not just people, animals too) Again, it doesn't add up so more miracles are going to be needed. Now you are telling me that animals are going to go against their instincts and not reproduce every chance they get. Oh right - they were different then. And the animals with canine teeth and short guts adapted for meat eating - how did they manage to live on grass or seeds, (no molars, no gizzards to grind up the grass and seeds) anyway?What did the lions and tigers eat on the Ark, by the way? (It's after the Fall and death has entered the world so no fair saying they ate hay).

"There is evidence for how such changes in the time-line or alternative universes could appear, although science is too primitive at this stage to verify such theories."Say what? You can't be serious. What evidence? And please don't say Einstein's theory of relativity, string theory or quantum mechanics. None of them say anything of the kind.Besides, if you are going to resort to "alternate universes" you might just as well say "God did it, that settles it." Sorry, that's not facts and logic, that is belief. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts.

"How does a cow put on a condom?"She tells the bull he is not going to get any unless he stands still while she accomplishes the task?

"Take science's discovery of the Big Bang and now dark matter and energy. Both of these discoveries are predicted by the text of the first few verses of Genesis."How so?On edit: As Ringo points out, this is off topic, so if you want to pursue this line of thought you should propose a new topic.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 12:25 PM

Yes, I suppose God could "turn off" the desire to reproduce, but now you have just invoked another miracle. Are you really sure you want to do that?By the way, I think the long lifespans are nonsense. Somebody seriously messed up either in translation or the individuals mentioned were not really individuals but represented families or clans.

You may have something there."The Babylonians also used clay for writing. They incised numbers with a stylus that left wedge-shaped marks. This resulted in the writing system being known as cuneiform, from cuneus, meaning a wedge, and forma, meaning a shape. The Babylonian system used a mixture of base ten and base sixty. Base sixty tended to be used for larger numbers."
http://www.geocities.com/...fair2002/school/arit/arithm1.htmHmm - and isn't it thought that Genesis was written by Babylonian exiles?on edit: That means Bishop Usher overestimated the age of the earth using his "begat" methodology, no? So the YEC position is even more absurd.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 01:42 PM