User talk:Zephyr Axiom

Great job on correcting grammar, that is needed and helps bring up the level of credibility! --Tony Sommer 02:35, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Dangerous animals topic
So, I got into a little debate on wikipedia with a former Young Earth Creationist concerning such things as pre-Adamite hominids. The debate is ended now, since neither of us was becoming convinced by the other's arguments and he didn't have much room in his personal schedule to continue any further with posts as long as we were exchanging. I believe his arguments for a local Flood to be flimsy at best (and I did not get around to all of my points), but he did bring up something else that I didn't have the most solid answer for. Namely, this was dangerous and cruel animals which God "takes credit for" in Job chapters 38 through 40.

His primary resource was Why Were Dangerous Animals Created? (PDF) by David Snoke, who argues that there is no evidence for a "recreation" or alteration of animals after the Fall, and yet God claims responsibility for killer animals. Conspicuously missing from the article, however, is any mention of living things being distinguished by having blood, and Snoke lumps animals together with insects (I don't know if anyone here will disagree with me drawing a line between the two and allowing insects to "die" in the model I use). He also does his own "correct" translation work on at least two occasions, without providing a detailed treatment of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, he does not mention variance of plant protein with change of environmental conditions. I've heard that grass, under the correct circumstances, can be up to 40% protein, and things could have been really different before the Flood. A change between herbivore/insectivore and carnivore may not have been as big as some would make it, and specialized hunter characteristics may have had peaceful uses we are currently ignorant of. Snoke brings up parasites, but does not consider that they could have originally been symbiotic rather than either always parasitic or originally independent.

What does everybody else think? And does Snoke's argument warrant a response on creationwiki? Is there already a Talk.Origins page on this that I don't remember (it's a long list)? --Zephyr Axiom 22:31, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure about the "dangerous and cruel animals which God "takes credit for"", but your point about the grass and enviornment being so different preflood is quite valid I think. Vegetation would have been much, much more plentiful and there would be more varieties. Grains can also have lots of protein, but I'm sure if an animal did not get it's proper nutrition it would look elsewhere for it depending on it's inteligence. I think a response on CW would be good, the more support we can get for Creation the better :-). I completely agree with you about health in general, though I haven't thought much about the herbs. I also entirely agree about church, there is no reason it has to be traditional and the way the average church is today. Thanks, -- Sega01 14:17, 19 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks, Sega! I think I will do the article if I get the chance.  Certain Creationists who's work I've read do seem to support the idea that carnivorous behavior arose at the Fall.  Thinking about it more, though, perhaps predation arose after the Flood, in a new environment where plants had lost the ability to produce certain levels of nutrient content.  Perhaps  hints that some animals, and not just man, would be allowed to eat meat as well?  Of course,  this article brings one to consider that even modern carnivorous animals are not quite as meat dependent as many would believe.  Btw, you're the first Creationist I know to share the same sentiments regarding health that I do.  Herbs are underrated by some, but yes, they may also be a bit overrated by certain groups.  Quality food is what I believe to be of more significance.  --Zephyr Axiom 18:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)