Another question comes to mind: Did God create the O157:H7 strain of E.Coli the day that Adam and Eve sinned? Or was O157:H7 a beneficial strain but somehow went rogue after the fall? (And was that a sudden change or a gradual one?)
The Bible says nothing about a “second creation” occurring after the fall. So what do YECs today typically think about this? Did God make the first pathogenic microbes on the day of the fall? Or did “good” microbes spontaneously morph into something nefarious?
Were some snakes suddenly granted poisonous venoms? Did some herbivores get new digestive systems for meat processing and appropriate teeth and claws for carnivorous lifestyles? Did some species of ivy spontaneously begin producing toxic secretions?
How did the YEC version of the fall proceed? (And why does the Bible make no mention of these changes? This is pretty major stuff, especially when all sorts of grass-eating lions, tigers, and dinosaurs suddenly turn blood-thirsty.)
So a miraculous rapid devolution that the Bible failed to record? There is absolutely nothing about major changes like this happening in the Bible. Usually, God used miracles pretty sparingly and for stated reasons. Major changes to living organisms is never recorded, so on a theological basis, I have to question where you’re getting this from. It’s certainly not the Bible.
I’m sitting here with my cuddly cat in my lap. Her sharp teeth and claws and short digestive tract seem to give her an advantage over her herbivore and omnivore prey? How is that devolved? She’s less likely to get sick from e. coli or salmonella than you are, thanks to her short digestive tract. That’s why dogs can eat the most nasty rotted things and not die, while you have to cook your meat.
Do YEC scientists have an example of what a “perfect genome” would look like? Sanford thinks Adam and Eve were created with perfect genomes that then degraded. What evidence is there that such thing could even exist? I don’t know how that would work, since something that is beneficial in one environment may not be beneficial in another environment. Replacing my respiratory system with gills would not be beneficial to me on dry land - I’d die very quickly. But if I lived in the ocean, it would be a benefit. With the respiratory system I have, dropping me in the ocean would mean a fairly quick death.
I never said all disease isn’t a result of sin. I was refuting what you seemed to be saying - that all disease is caused by sin. I don’t believe that, and neither did Jesus or the author of Job. I gave you clear examples from the Bible of disease not caused by sin. I also agreed with you that some disease in the Bible was caused by sin, as punishment by God. But if you get the flu, your first thought shouldn’t be, “What sin did I do that I’m being punished for?”
Then what? If all carnivores (presumably everything that causes death) evolved after the fall, in fact very shortly after the expulsion from Eden, what timescale do you suppose? It might not be minutes, but it must have been at most a few years. It’s a ridiculous hypothesis, contradicted by all the data, but it’s only a clear version of your vague earlier pronouncement.
How? Why? What support can you possibly have for that? And why do you call it devolution? Are carnivores somehow inferior to herbivores?
Ken Ham claims that the post-flood changes in animals occurred over an approximately hundred year period—such as all of the world’s Felidae cats species diversifying from their original “cat kind” Noah’s ark passenger. (Hyper-evolution for sure!) He never explains how he came up with that timing. I’ve not noticed Ham and AIG ever providing time parameters for the post-fall hyper-evolution he posits.
That’s a different subject altogether. Here we’re talking about the post-Fall changes, during which all species that cause death evolved from innocent herbivores. Plant death is apparently not important, though I’m not entirely clear on that.
They have to fit all life into the ark, so AiG is now suggesting that representatives of various “kinds” were on the ark, and then all today’s species “adapted” from that very quickly. It has to be especially quick, since many of today’s species are mentioned in literature of that time. So you have a dog kind and a cat kind, etc.
I don’t think all creationist organizations agree with it though. I think it’s just AiG so far.
Interestingly, the dog kind ancestor and the cat kind ancestor look like they themselves would be the same “kind”.
