Bob - (this response relates to comments in the other thread as well):

So how do carnivores arise in your world? This is an issue we've been discussing in this thread for the past couple of days. How do you get from a herbivore of some kind to the lion? The two approaches suggested are either a later miraculous modification by God (oddly missing from the Bible) or a rapid burst of evolution. That's what I meant about nternal inconsistency. That and the creation of the stars - which I know you reject with your 'two zillion' argument that (to use your own phrases) seems eisegetical to me.

ichabod, you've laid it out in an eminently sensible way that is plausible and consistent, so I'm not going to make any argument against it.

I will note that there is evidence of a much older earth and older life on earth that still needs to be accounted for, and that our own inability to observe (live through) vast periods is not in itself evidence that they didn't happen.

"Oddly missing?"

Odd to whom? Nobody in the Bible narrative-- or from other ancient texts that I'm aware of-- sat around musing about how herbivores became carnivores. Like an explanation of celestial mechanics for Joshua, any mention of that would probably have been met with the ancient equivalent of "Huh? What's that got to do with my concerns?"

And once again, I bring to your attention " "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field."

That's a radical change from before. Just because it isn't itemized for every organism doesn't mean it didn't affect them all.

It may not be missing. We just may be missing it.

Could be. As I noted, I'm not so much responding to your approach, but to Bob's grinding "Everything that happened happened in SIX DAYS" approach.

But you're right, the curse may very well have implied these sorts of changes: thorns on plants and teeth on lions.

Now I doubt any person who has lost teeth would think that teeth were a curse, lol but I get your point. :)

Hehe - I have to admit, I'm just enjoying imagining the poor lion munching away on some fruit, then suddenly 'brring!!'

"Hey, what are these pointy things in my mouth? Ow, bit my tongue! And what's going on with my feet? Cha-ching, glint: hey, talons!"

And then he starts seeing the gazelle in a whole new way...

a highly contemplative lion

That's more than I know. If I take the record seriously, I have to be just as careful about what it does not say, as noting what it does.

The Bible does not say, "After Creation Week, nothing changed." On the contrary some things changed radically. What were they? A few we know, others may be reasonably inferred, and lion's dentition. . . maybe.

"SIX days you shall labor.. for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." is pretty much how all the bible translators get this -- I would hate to "blame that on Bob" as if I am the author of scripture.

Because then it makes it appear that scripture writing is up for grabs and anyone else that wants a shot at it -- go ahead.

Having said that - I actually do appreaciate your being willing to come out as you do in that post and exactly negate it by implication.

in Christ,

Bob

As I have been saying - we know that genes can be activated by the presence of certain enzymes and proteins in the environment and by other environmental factors (the domesticate pig growing tusks when released into the wild - after a few generations for example).

My argument is that some of this is simply the robust architecture built into the DNA such that the organisms display defense/protective mechanisms over time when the environment becomes hostile (food becomes scarce etc.)

By contrast -- are you suggesting that Adam went around killing monkeys for his breakfast? Was he running from T-Rex all day in the Garden of Eden in your view?

What kind of alternative are you imagining before the fall?

Notice that in Gen 1:29-30 God tells us that ALL animals were eating plants -- not each other.

How exactly does that fit Darwinism?

In fact - the point that this can not be reworked back to Darwinism is much more serious for the cause of evolutionism than the issue of the gene for tusks in pigs not being manifest while they are domesticated - could ever be a challenge for the YEC argument.

in Christ,

Bob