This post is an FYI or maybe you had problems with this.

Animals and meat

I was taught and it talks about in Genesis we humans were originally designed to eat plants. Animals were given for people to eat at genesis 9:3 KJV. I use KJV because its public domain,I personally like the NLT.

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

I had problems about animals. I wondered why peranna's have teeth. Some of my friends who bible believers helped me to understand it clearer. Animals have instinct. They're bodies are ok eating meat. I've heard it said or I took it like this 'Animals were originally designed to only eat plants '. Since God is all knowing I believe that before the fall animals ate only plants. But God had forknowledge. After the fall, we see carnivores, herbavores, and omnivores. The post flood world was also different.

In the new heaven and earth it will be different, however.

Views: 420

Replies to This Discussion

Some animals that would seem to be classic examples of strict carnivores may also be a little more flexible than we might think.  For example, monitor lizards (genus Varanus) used to be considered as strict carnivores.  All monitors were supposed to eat meat.  However, there is now known to be a six foot monitor that eats only fruit.  It's been named the Northern Sierra Madre Forest Monitor.  Does this mean all monitors can live on fruit?  Not necessarily, but it shows that there is more of a possibility than we used to think.

Another animal that would seem to be an obvious non-herbivore is the anteater.  After all, as their name implies, anteaters eat ants, not fruit.  However, anteaters have also been observed eating fruit both in the wild and in zoos.

Pirranhas are actually known to eat vegetable matter: http://creation.com/piranha

It was most certainly possible for the dinosaurs to eat plants. Some of them used their sharp teeth to chew strong grass.

Even this fierce looking dinosaur ate plants: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-fanged-dwarf-dinosaur-southern-africa....

Good points David.

David Thomas Posey said:

Some animals that would seem to be classic examples of strict carnivores may also be a little more flexible than we might think.  For example, monitor lizards (genus Varanus) used to be considered as strict carnivores.  All monitors were supposed to eat meat.  However, there is now known to be a six foot monitor that eats only fruit.  It's been named the Northern Sierra Madre Forest Monitor.  Does this mean all monitors can live on fruit?  Not necessarily, but it shows that there is more of a possibility than we used to think.

Another animal that would seem to be an obvious non-herbivore is the anteater.  After all, as their name implies, anteaters eat ants, not fruit.  However, anteaters have also been observed eating fruit both in the wild and in zoos.

Hey thanks for the interesting link about the Heterodontosaur.

Harrison J. Elkins said:

Pirranhas are actually known to eat vegetable matter: http://creation.com/piranha

It was most certainly possible for the dinosaurs to eat plants. Some of them used their sharp teeth to chew strong grass.

Even this fierce looking dinosaur ate plants: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-fanged-dwarf-dinosaur-southern-africa....

It is sad and so wrong-headed that people insist on classifying an animal according to diet only by its teeth. We have many living examples (such as the ones mentioned and one of my favorites, the giant panda) to teach us caution when coming up with theories about extinct creatures. It is possible and highly probable that many of the animals were eating meat BEFORE the flood. I'm sure that meat-eating was more common after the flood because of a lack of vegetation that probably lasted for decades and perhaps centuries.   

Good point.  We know for a fact that many animals were carnivorous before the Flood, including that fossilized fish eating the other fossilized fish.  And, since this is the dinosaur group, we can't leave out all the poor dinosaurs with obvious signs of being eaten by other dinosaurs.  Allosaurus claw marks, Tyrranosaur teeth marks, and carnivore coprolites show clearly that dinosaurs didn't just look dangerous, but sometimes backed up their looks with a hunter's appetite. 

Of course, no carnivore digestive systems have been discovered yet to my knowledge, so there is no evidence for obligate carnivory in dinosaurs, but whether or not they had to eat meat they certainly were enjoying it by the time of the flood.
 
Steven Posey said:

It is sad and so wrong-headed that people insist on classifying an animal according to diet only by its teeth. We have many living examples (such as the ones mentioned and one of my favorites, the giant panda) to teach us caution when coming up with theories about extinct creatures. It is possible and highly probable that many of the animals were eating meat BEFORE the flood. I'm sure that meat-eating was more common after the flood because of a lack of vegetation that probably lasted for decades and perhaps centuries.   

It is entirely possible that fossil remains showing evidence of carnivorous behavior could have ALSO been herbivores. DEER today are herbivores, as are squirrels and other animals of the northern forests here in Indiana. BUT these creatures will also eat things other than vegetation - they will meat, bones, carrion, and insects!

And though fossil remains of T-rex and other raptor have shown chewed up prey within the abdominal cavity, it is entirely possible that T-rex could have enjoyed giant watermelons as well. We know that in the original very good creation that NO ANIMALS ate meat. All were plant eaters, including T-rex. The propensity to eat meat, according to Scriptures, is something that arose after the Fall, either immediately or gradually. BUT meat-eating was not the original state of affairs.

Hey Steve and Thomas and others....

All of your arguments above are speculations and interesting indeed. I would say that most of what has been said above is indeed speculation.

Its a fact that coprolites of several different dino species that indeed show bone and other animal remains in it?  This is a study of its own. Since many of our carnivorous mammals were contemporaries of dinos then one must also look at these too.

Certainly you are making an argument about some animals existing today that eat both, they were designed that way, so why is this an argument?  And also for the sake of conversation  that lizard you spoke about (Monitor) does also eat meat as well.  It is a very unusual monitor to say the least....does this argument that you bring up negate the 99% that are indeed carnivores????  But again we have snakes that eat eggs and that is their diet.  The have a specialized mouth to swallow and a back bone to crunch eggs with.  Again the design features of Gods creation out weight the speculations of man for me. 

Ken Ham says that “we know that originally T. rex was a vegetarian.”  His sole evidence for this is Genesis 1:30.  Yes, God gave the green plants for food, but He did not prohibit the eating of meat in this verse.  The Hebrew word for meat can also be translated food, so nothing can be implied about the plants being considered “meat.” This is not a mandate for meat eating animal species to eat plants?  Man certainly could subsist on plants. But what evidence can you provide other than speculation that this is true about mankind?  There is tons of evidences of man eating meat? He goes on to mention the T-Rex’s teeth possibly being designed for melons, gourds, etc.  One would not need six inch serrated teeth to open a melon.  There are dinos with teeth from other dinos that preyed on these.  Do we just disregard what is right in front of our eyes?  Gods work and evidence is not fuzzy here? It fuzzy when men play with Gods designs.  

To solve the T-Rex tooth problem, Ken takes this view…the Curse from the Fall ‘may have resulted” in changes to their structure, either by starting a degenerative process or by deliberate design.  This runs totally counter to what we understand about DNA and also our own observations of the animal diversity now, and the fossil diversity that exists in museums? How about God as the designer didn’t know what he was doing? God did not “recreate” T-Rex from a plant eater to a carnivore, not as this also implies hundreds of thousands of other animals he originally created and would have by necessity re-created them as well?  I don’t see evidence for this inference?  There is no empirical evidence to support this claim.  IF Ken is literal about the scriptures then his assumptive comments run totally counter to the scripture.  This is why I say this is in error.  This does not change my YEC view, it does not affect Christ's atonement......but it does question the eisegesis of this scripture, for me.

Yes, we do speculate in our comments above.  There is always a certain amount of speculation in dealing with the past, especially when we are talking about dinosaur behavior.  However, a lot of what we said was not speculation.  It is fact, not speculation, that anteaters eat fruit.  It is fact that certain dinosaurs ate meat before the flood. 

There are other facts that we haven't mentioned above.  One fact is that many "meat eaters" alive today can eat plants as well as meat.  We could speculate that animals presently thought to be obligate carnivores might eat meat, but that is not proven fact. 

Another fact is that God gave humans and animals the same command to eat plants, and I don't believe anyone here disputes that humans lived on plants until the command was altered to allow meat after the flood.  Now, we notice God did not tell animals they could eat meat after the flood; I would assume that this is because animals had been eating meat for years prior to the flood.

David I wasn't being coy in mentioning speculation.. Hey we all are, including myself, but if we all can get around our presuppositions there is a "truth" put there. Agreed the facts speak where they do. There is no schism between us in this one thing, what ever "did" take place is going to be homogenous with scripture. It is a fact and I agree with you that many animals do eat plants or take in plant material in differing amounts even obligate carnivores in the mammal kingdom, to help with hydration and other certain requirements.....

Genesis 1;29

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 

Thomas I have never seen this as a command, but that is just my own take on it, I think its a statement that God has given provision that are totally ample to meet their needs.  Maybe it was a command, I am not trying to argue that point  at all. Cheers!!!

David. There will always be those who believe that from the beginning of creation all things continue the same. They will always insist that from day one, even in the very good, unfallen world, there was, and always has been bloodshed and the eating of meat. After all this is a fact of science. So we must therefore adjust our "view" and our malleable sacred texts to the firm and definitive demands of science. If "science" says they were meat-eaters then the inferior and subjective and widely diverging interpreters must yield to the inalterable "facts."

Don't worry, Lou, I didn't think you were being coy or anything.  I think I understand where you are coming from; it would make a difference if Genesis wasn't a command, but it had that effect for humans.

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service