Yes, there are a few people in that camp. No scientists I’m personally aware of. It’s misguided, but I think it’s mainly an attempt at getting around the light time travel problem. Sometimes called a soft gap: https://creation.com/soft-gap-sophistry
Yep the trend of supernatural explanations being routinely replaced by natural ones is definitely in your favor…
Actually, historically, I’m pretty sure there were a lot of YGC’s in seventh day adventism. It is just a bit less common among among fundamentalist YECs, but you guys are a very recent phenomenon.
Hardly. Of course there were the ‘dark ages’ following the capitulation to Darwinism that happened in the late 1800s, but YEC is the historic Christian view that goes back to the apostles and to Jesus himself, and can also be traced through the explicit writings of early church fathers such as Irenaus who made it clear animals did not die prior to the Fall.
I’m familiar with that mythology. Finding out that it was false was one of the reasons I left YEC. A great example, as we’ve discussed before, is Augustine. Unlike you, for example, he thought it was absurd to think there was no animal death before the fall. That is one example of where modern YEC readings of Genesis deviate wildly from historical Christianity and wildly from even a plain reading of the text.
Your statements are deviating wildly from the text. God said in Genesis 1 that he gave plants for food (only plants are mentioned, which is significant). In Genesis 9, following the Flood, God says,
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."
That is highly significant as well. If you weren’t sure what Genesis 1:30 meant, then Genesis 9:3 makes it abundantly clear. It was not until this point that the eating of flesh was allowed. That’s important because in Genesis 1:30, this statement was not directed to mankind only, but to the animals as well.
I’m curious if you will ever concede a point. Do you even see where I am coming from? How would you even know if you were wrong?
To be fair Dr Swamidass, you have not really responded to anything I just said. Why would I concede a point when I have just demonstrated from the Scriptures that life was originally designed to be herbivorous? You are claiming this view is a later aberration, but it comes right from the Bible itself. Augustine was the one who deviated by claiming that animals were created to be mortal. Irenaeus said the opposite hundreds of years before Augustine, so clearly this is not the “historic view”.
That is not what Genesis 1 says. @PDPrice what would be a good goal of conversation between us? What is your aim?
My aim is to tell the truth.
That is not what Genesis 1 says.
We can quote it right here:
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. Gen 1:29-30
You don’t own the truth. And that passage does not teach that animals were herbivores. Seems you misread it.
How did I misread it? It seems pretty straightforward and simple. In fact I don’t know how it could be any clearer, especially in light of Genesis 9:3.
Read that passage again. Where does it say all animals were herbivores? It doesn’t. Where does it say plants were all they ate? It doesn’t.
You have your interpretation. But don’t confuse your interpretation for what Scripture says.
Perhaps an analogy could clarify this. Imagine you are staying in my home as a guest over a period of a few weeks. When you first arrive, I open the cupboard and say, “You may have any of the canned food to eat while you’re here.”
Then, a week later, I open it again and say, “Now, just as I gave you the canned food, I now give you everything in this cupboard to eat.”
Based upon these statements I made, would you conclude that during the first week it was not my intention for you to eat things other than canned food? This is exactly equivalent to what we find in Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 9:3.
Over 30 years of interacting with Creationists, I have bumped into this intermediate position more than once!
Are you willing to separate the idea of vegetarianism from the idea of immortality?
Eden has the Tree of Life for a reason, keeping the Adam and Eve animals alive.
Sounds like you are conceding that the text does not make the claims you just said it did. You are inferring those claims. So now we know the idea of carnivores before the fall is in conflict with your inference, but not the text of scripture. I completely agree. But we are not subject to your human inferences.
The point of my analogy was to demonstrate that the text of scripture indicates the inference, not that it was some unjustified leap but that it was the intended meaning. What is your take on the author’s intended meaning for Genesis 1:29-30 with respect to Genesis 9:3?
They are linked. If the Tree served its purpose then immortality would have been the result. They were prevented from staying with the Tree.
ABSOLUTELY. Which means… humans were not created immortal. They had the option to be, if they had followed the rules of Eden.
There is no reason to think any non-human animal was to be immortal, right?
NOTE: Vegetarianism and immortality are separate topics in Genesis.