Comments on: Creationists Believe Lions Originally Ate Plants

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:12:02 +0000

oops: please render the comment above: “We cannot learn about the dietary habits of lions from the Genesis account ANY more than I can learn about the physiology…”

[Ed: done. (The typo was "and more")]

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:09:51 +0000

Hey.

Just thought I’d re-emphasize the obvious: “Bible-believing” is not the same as “literal interpretation of all the Bible”. I’m a bible believer, but I think that there are many good reasons (even if you ignore science completely) for interpreting at least the first two chapters of Genesis allegorically. Apparently many of the Church fathers (long before Darwin) favoured an allegorical approach. Many of the early interpreters did the same. Have a look at the way that the Genesis account is physically rendered in most Bibles – the same as in the Psalms and other ‘poetic’ works. We cannot learn about the dietary habits of lions from the Genesis account any more than I can learn about the physiology of the human circulatory system from the lyrics of that really annoying Afrikaans pop song ‘Baby Choklets’ (something like, ‘when you’re near, my heart pumps chocolates’). The artist doesn’t mean NOTHING. He just doesn’t mean anything about science. Perhaps, when faced with images of a paradise in which ‘the lion lies down with the lamb’ we should be thinking less in terms of food-chains and more in terms of peace.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:44:01 +0000

If you take what the bible says into account, then we have to believe that whether Adam ate of the tree or not, he would have dies. I say this because if you look at why he was kicked out, it was so he couln’t eat of the tree of life….which would make him live forever in his state, which really was about his spiritual part rather than the physical. If we were meant to live forever at creation, then we would not be born as babies, I may be dence here but i think the laws of the universe dictate that if something is mortal – as we were at creation, then we are subjct to death. I am a Bible believing Christian but I cannot separate science and my faith because there are two many parallels if one reads the Bilble objectively. As for the lions eating plants, hogwash because if I am to believe that God created them, is omnscient, the I have to believe he is clued up on what was to happen in the garden and would not have felt the need to make a “new and improved” lion because he does not make mistakes. And the bible does clearly speak of a pre – Adamite world and that confirms the fact that the world as we know it, it actually a couple of billions of years. And who know’s I am vert inclined to believe that even after this one, there is another on the way. Science speaks of the end this age and the bible speaks of a new earth in revelations.
I confess that I am not a student of anything but just an average person with a healthy dose of curiosity..

By: Do Any Shofarians Care About Science?

Do Any Shofarians Care About Science? — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:01:11 +0000

[...] Creationists Believe Lions Originally Ate Plants – bleh, I don’t think much of this post. Just me ranting about “no death before the fall”. Mostly written due to my frustration at fumbling questions at such seminars. [...]

By: Auke

Auke — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:32:40 +0000

Cretionists generally have very few, and particularly lame, arguments when it comes to the age, not of the Earth, but of the Sun, star clusters, the Milky Way, other galaxies, and the whole Universe.
Spank them with a globular cluster and nucular physics, rather than emolution.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:24:18 +0000

I agree on teaching age-related science, and touching on as many fields of science as possible. Creationists keep the debate focused on bleeding edge evolution research, rather than the stuff that’s easier to understand and comprehend…

Advice on talkorigins suggest focusing on flood geology. That’s tackling the mythos more directly. Too directly, maybe, it does also cause more of an emotional response. I’m wondering if anyone in the area would be interested in joining me when I watch Carl Sagan’s Cosmos? Um, that’d probably be in May, I unfortunately have a holiday that will be taking much of my time in the near future.

By: Pienk Zuit

Pienk Zuit — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:39:13 +0000

I think the first argument with a creationist should be about the age of the earth. Evolution is emotional to some people for some reason. If you argue about the age of the Earth, there’s really not much they can say, other than trying to discredit dating techniques (or the completely rediculous notion that God created everything to look like it is millions of years old. Like He’s some kind of con artist). That should be easy enough to shoot down. If the Earth is not 6000 years old, the completely literal reading of the Bible doesn’t make sense any more. Never mind having apes as forefathers. Second is the whole conspiracy theory that you have to believe to be a creationist. Just doesn’t make sense. Too many independant branches of science involved, too many inependant scientists, it’s just too big to be a conspiracy against the Bible.

But then again, there really are people that honestly believe the moon landings did not take place.