why do animals suffer?

[Agnostic75]

Man's fall into sin apparently affected the animals adversely, as well as man.

That is not true since dating methods, and paleontology, have shown that dinosaurs were killing each other long before humans existed. Sharks have been around for millions of years, and most of them have had teeth for millions of years. Sharks' teeth are much more suitable for catching and eating fish and mammals than for eating sea vegetation.

Since evolution is far more probable than creationism is, that is another good reason for people not to interpret the book of Genesis literally, including the global flood theory.

 

[Penumbra]

I was watching a nature documentary the other day.

There was the classic scene where the leopard goes after the prey, the circle of life stuff.

But this one hit me especially hard.

After the leopard caught this lama-type creature, it merely wounded it. The leopard had cubs that were getting older, and she wanted them to practice their killing. So she backed off and let the cubs after it. But they weren't very well-trained in going after the neck yet, so they just kind of started biting and clawing at this animal, which after a while was just kind of a bloody squirming mess.

After a while, one of the cubs figured out how to start biting its neck and the animal eventually died.

I'm always hesitant to label nature as something beautiful and wonderful. It's a mix of things, and most descriptions of it are incomplete.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My 15 year old dog,Albert, is slowly dying. His hip has given out so he can't stand. As far as I know he has never sinned so shouldn't be affected by the fall. He has shown unconditional love and loyalty all his life.
I understand the idea why we suffer but I don't see why animals have to. Any ideas out there?

Sorry about your dog. :0(

It's just what living forms are prone to. As are we. Hopefully he will pass as comfortable as possible under the circumstances

 

[adi2d]

RIP. ALBERT

Born. March 21 1998
Died. December 26 2012

 

[Valjean]

My condolences, adi.

 

[Kerr]

RIP. ALBERT

Born. March 21 1998
Died. December 26 2012

RIP Albert.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry all. Just feeling sorry for myself a little here. Stupid topic.

Not a stupid topic, and Im very sorry to hear.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm very sorry for your loss....

 

[rusra02]

That is not true since dating methods, and paleontology, have shown that dinosaurs were killing each other long before humans existed. Sharks have been around for millions of years, and most of them have had teeth for millions of years. Sharks' teeth are much more suitable for catching and eating fish and mammals than for eating sea vegetation.

Since evolution is far more probable than creationism is, that is another good reason for people not to interpret the book of Genesis literally, including the global flood theory.

Dating methods are not reiiable. We know that many dinosaurs were vegetation eaters. Since no one alive today was present when dinosaurs roamed the earth, any "facts" we have about them are subject to change. For example, were some dinosaurs the scavengers of other dead creatures, as we also have today? Of course, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "evolution is far more probable" than the Bible 's account of creation. The EVIDENCE supports an intelligent Maker, not blind chance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dating methods are not reiiable. We know that many dinosaurs were vegetation eaters. Since no one alive today was present when dinosaurs roamed the earth, any "facts" we have about them are subject to change.

Then how can you say that many were vegetarians?

For example, were some dinosaurs the scavengers of other dead creatures, as we also have today? Of course, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "evolution is far more probable" than the Bible 's account of creation. The EVIDENCE supports an intelligent Maker, not blind chance.

Evolution isn't blind chance. And science most definitely supports the explanation that doesn't rely on arguments from ignorance, like what you just said about dinosaurs, an "magic" as an acceptable explanation for any natural phenomena.

 

[Valjean]

Dating methods are not reiiable. We know that many dinosaurs were vegetation eaters. Since no one alive today was present when dinosaurs roamed the earth, any "facts" we have about them are subject to change. For example, were some dinosaurs the scavengers of other dead creatures, as we also have today? Of course, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "evolution is far more probable" than the Bible 's account of creation. The "EVIDENCE" supports an intelligent Maker, not blind chance.

This is simply not true, rusra. Dating methods are reliable. Facts are subject to modification as new evidence comes to light, but there are certain well established facts that are not in dispute.

I don't understand how 'scavenging dinosaurs' illustrates "facts subject to change." Do you understand the concept of ecological niches? If there's an unutilized survival strategy, something is going to exploit it. There were dinosaur equivalents to all the mammalian 'lifestyles.' This has always been understood.

What EVIDENCE supports an intelligent maker? What observed facts cannot be explained by basic chemistry, biology and physics?
There is simply no evidence of "the Bible's account of creation" -- nor should there be.
From the very beginning, in Genesis: the Bible's order of creation makes no sense. The timetable makes no sense. The flood was physically impossible, &c, &c, &c...

The Bible is not a scientific or historical treatise. It's not reportage. The scientific method is completely foreign to it. It does not form or test hypotheses, and it's "facts" are treated axiomatically -- they're not tested. It is full of contradictions and factual absurdities -- as biblical scholars concede.

Science explains things. The Bible does not. The Bible declares things. Science explains how. The Bible asserts who. Science explains mechanism. The Bible merely asserts agency.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: You have often mentioned examining evidence. What evidence have you examined? What evidence have creationists who live in remote regions of Africa examined, many of whom are not able to read and write?

Can you adequately refute Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun? No, since you have refused to do so on a number of occasions because you know that you do not understand it. How can you adequately refute something that you do not personally understand?

You believe that creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are true. From a scientific perspective, those claims involve a lot of often complex biology, geology, and physics. Surely many people who accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory know very little about all three of those sciences, so your comments about examining evidence are not valid. It takes a good deal of time, and intelligence, to understand just one of those sciences well, let alone all three.

Do you object when biblical inerrantists who know very little about biology, geology, and physics, accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory? Surely many biblical inerrantists would not even be able to pass a high school test in biology, geology, and physics.

Will you be honest and state that you do not know very much about biology, geology, and physics? Would you agree to take an online test, at this forum, to test your knowledge of those sciences, without referring to anyone else's writings, and answer based only upon your own personal understanding of those sciences?

 

[Agnostic75]

Dating methods are not reiiable.

If you believe that you know enough about physics to adequately defend the young earth theory, please make a reply in my new thread that is titled "The young earth theory." If you do not understand the article, which of course you don't, it would be impossible for you to adequately refute it based only upon your own personal knowledge of physics.

 

[rusra02]

This is simply not true, rusra. Dating methods are reliable. Facts are subject to modification as new evidence comes to light, but there are certain well established facts that are not in dispute.

I don't understand how 'scavenging dinosaurs' illustrates "facts subject to change." Do you understand the concept of ecological niches? If there's an unutilized survival strategy, something is going to exploit it. There were dinosaur equivalents to all the mammalian 'lifestyles.' This has always been understood.

What EVIDENCE supports an intelligent maker? What observed facts cannot be explained by basic chemistry, biology and physics?
There is simply no evidence of "the Bible's account of creation" -- nor should there be.
From the very beginning, in Genesis: the Bible's order of creation makes no sense. The timetable makes no sense. The flood was physically impossible, &c, &c, &c...

The Bible is not a scientific or historical treatise. It's not reportage. The scientific method is completely foreign to it. It does not form or test hypotheses, and it's "facts" are treated axiomatically -- they're not tested. It is full of contradictions and factual absurdities -- as biblical scholars concede.

Science explains things. The Bible does not. The Bible declares things. Science explains how. The Bible asserts who. Science explains mechanism. The Bible merely asserts agency.

To claim that the Bible's statements have not been tested is to ignore the facts of history. The Bible has been and continues to be attacked relentlessly, it's every letter seemingly disputed. Despite this, however, the Bible stands as a book of truth. As to dating methods, to cite but one example: Radiocarbon dating:
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Macropaedia, 1976, Vol. 5, p. 508) stated: “Whatever the cause, . . . it is clear that carbon-14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like to have.” The same is true of other dating methods.
It is easy to make statements attacking the Bible; it is quit another matter to prove them. I believe the ToE is without foundation, but accepted virtually without question by many today who have heard only the "contradictions of the falsely-called knowledge." (I Timothy 6:20)

 

[rusra02]

If you believe that you know enough about physics to adequately defend the young earth theory, please make a reply in my new thread that is titled "The young earth theory." If you do not understand the article, which of course you don't, it would be impossible for you to adequately refute it based only upon your own personal knowledge of physics.

I am not a YEC, and therefore feel no need to defend this idea that is not taught in the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not a YEC, and therefore feel no need to defend this idea that is not taught in the Bible.

You said that dating methods are not reliable. How are they not reliable?

You have often mentioned examining evidence. What evidence have you examined? What evidence have creationists who live in remote regions of Africa examined, many of whom are not able to read and write?

Do you object when biblical inerrantists who know very little about biology, and geology, accept creationism, and the global flood theory? Surely many biblical inerrantists would not even be able to pass a high school test in biology, and geology.

Can you adequately refute Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun? No, since you have refused to do so on a number of occasions because you know that you do not understand it. How can you adequately refute something that you do not personally understand? The article is important since many creationists claim that the flagellum is an excellent example of intelligent design.

 

[Agnostic75]

Man's fall into sin apparently affected the animals adversely, as well as man.

That is obviously false since a number of animals preceded humans, and plenty of fossils shows that some animals killed each other long before humans existed.

I suggest that you read an article about radiometric dating at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html. The article is by Michael Benton, Ph.D. According to the article, he "is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids’ books."

Consider the following excerpts from the article:

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.

The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

As Dr. Benton said, dinosaurs are over 65 million years old. Obviously, humans have not existed nearly as long as that. Many of those dinosaurs had sharp teeth, and killed and ate other dinosaurs long before humans existed, so they could not have been adversely affected by anything that humans did millions of years later. Quite obviously, sharp teeth are much more useful for catcthing and eating animals and fish than they are for eating vegetation. Cheetahs are structured to run fast so that they can catch other animals. If they ate only plants, they would not need to be able to run fast.

Do you understand geology well enough to adequately defend the global flood based upon your own personal knowledge of geology?

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

Suffering exists because we live in a world populated with countless life forms with different intentions. There are also laws of physics and biological processes that prevent bodies from lasting forever.

 

[adi2d]

Suffering exists because we live in a world populated with countless life forms with different intentions. There are also laws of physics and biological processes that prevent bodies from lasting forever.

I think a mental off switch wouls be a better design

 

[adi2d]

New puppy in the house. He's a thoroughbred GOK. Been a long time but turns out I'm still a pretty good dogsitter. So fun seeing him see things for the first time. maybe that's why we are here