The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb

bFast, Jerry thanks for your honesty I've got nothing but respect for people looking for answers / truth. It’s people who think they found it I’m worried about. If ID is going to stand up it has to do it on it’s own two feet it has to do it a scientific merit. This tread does not help. kengee

bfast, My comment has more to do with the traditional Christian theology of the omnificent God and the contradiction with a "tinkering" designer of life who had to manipulate nucleotides on many occasions for the last 3.5 billion years. However, the God of the bible did intervene a lot in man's affairs so in this sense He can be seen as "tinkering" and prayer is asking for "tinkering" on many occasions. One obvious way around the God who has to tinker is One who set up a process that would unfold into life's diversity when He created life in the first place. But what that process is if it does exist is still a mystery. Many speculate here but like the materialists' beliefs it is mainly speculation. Like nearly every type of science I find ID fun but I do not think it will answer any real questions about life's origin and design and certainly not anything about theology. The most fun is pointing out to the materialists that they are full of something they accuse their detractors of having. jerry

Jerry, "There is nothing in ID that supports any particular religion especially Christianity." As a Christian, I would definitely agree with you that ID is a solidly uncomfortable fit with Christianity. Years ago I tried on YEC. I found it to be an intolerable fit with the evidence. I then tried on OEC a la Hugh Ross. This was a bit better. However, the evidence for man being far older than 20,000 years is rather excellent, evidence for a flood that reduced the population of man to 7 is non-existant (though evidence of a global flood that devistated human populations is good.) Other issues, such as the phenomenon of death and struggle, do not support a simple Biblical interpretation. I must currently live with significant conflict between my faith and my science. The result of this conflict is that I am abandoning any literal interpretation of the pre-Abrahamic Scriptures. Though ID is clearly compatible with a God hypothesis (though it doesn't compell a God hypothesis) the God that is compatible with ID seems quite different than the God described in the first chapters of Genesis. bFast

Kengee, My guess is that many creationists feel comfortable here and some like myself feel the constant reference to religion and the bible undermines ID. There is nothing in ID that supports any particular religion especially Christianity. In fact you could make the point that ID undermines traditional Christianity. But given that, the creationists are generally very polite and sincere and often very well informed and perceptive and I have learned a lot from some of them as well as learning a lot from those who espouse Darwinism. You should also know that there are several here like myself that think ID is the best explanation for many of the major changes in life forms over the last 3.5 billion years and has definitely nothing to do with the bible. And are willing to be convinced otherwise if persuasive evidence is presented or there are dramatic new finds in the fossil record. But as of now neither exists. jerry

Kangee, "If you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out." Kangee, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I will say, in defence of the ID community, that this is a definitely an exception thread. bFast

kengee: Evolutionist say that ID is creationism, and if you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out. I would say that is a warped inference. And why is that the only people who make that warped inference are the same people who know the least about either ID or Creation? Obviously you missed the point of "the Flood" in this thread and instead chose to twist it into something you were already biased towards. Here is what AiG, a leading Creationist organization has to say:

However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other. In today's culture, many are attracted to the ID movement because they can decide for themselves who the creator is—a Great Spirit, Brahman, Allah, God, etc. The current movement focuses more on what is designed, rather than who designed it. Thus, leaders in the movement do not have problems with accepting an old age for the earth or allowing evolution to play a vital role once the designer formed the basics of life. Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all. Without the framework of the Bible and the understanding that evil entered the world through man’s actions (Genesis 3), God appears sloppy and incompetent. People ask why God is unable to prevent evil from thwarting His plans, resulting in such poor design, instead of understanding that because of the Fall there is now a cursed design.

This is a free world and people can reference anything they want in a conversation. And as far as refuting the Flood, what was used as a reference to check against? Joseph

Well just because many IDists tend to be creationists doesn't mean it isn't scientific imo. It's inherently agnostic, but ID has theological implications - thus many supporters tend to fit the Christian creationist stereotype. Afterall, the problem of evil otherwise known as the argument from poor design, is a philosopical question, and is pretty irrelevant to ID but is relevant to "Christian theory". WinglesS

kengee, I think the amount of creationism talked of on this site simply speaks of the ID'ers willingness to listen to us; unlike the evolutionists who constantly bash christians as idiots H.H.

ajl, try this article for your statement on polar bears... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0530bears.asp H.H.

bFast this is weird for a reason. The bait was laid and the mice walked into the trap. Evolutionist say that ID is creationism, and if you read all the posts here expect yours then this is borne out. I like you believed that Id was trying to be scientist based. If flood theory is encompassed by ID then not only has it left science behind it has also left it's agnostic principles behind to. kengee

Does this dog and cat picture mean the Millennium has arrived? IMHO it's pretty clear that the Isaiah passages are metaphorical for the peace that will come to human society when Christ returns and the Kingdom of God is fully arrived. They have nothing to do with actual wolves, lambs, goats and little children playing together nicely. Unfortunately YECs and pre-trib, pre-millennialists have made this into a sort of proof text for their position. Either way, the proposed test is silly. Even if the YEC / pre-tribbers are right about the Isaiah passages, we're not living in the millennial kingdom, unless we all missed something important. dopderbeck

Carnivorous animals before the flood wouldn’t contradict the biblical teaching. Most literal creationists, like myself, would argue that carnivores came after Adam sinned. So, from Adam’s sin to the flood we could reason for the emergence (rapid even) of killer carnivores. this is a pretty weak opinion in my view. Did the lion have sharp teeth to rip apart meat, but only ate vegetables? Or, did he instantly evolve those teeth and other aparatus after the Fall? If you believe that, then you have more faith in evolution that most NDEs :-) Spiders don't have the anatomy to eat plants as far as I know. Did they somehow lose that after the fall, and only go after blood? Also, did polar bears live in warm climates with all that fur since most young earth creationist believe the Earth's climate was warm. Did the fur appear after the flood? I think there are a tremendous amount of difficulties with the YEC, world-wide flood, and no carnivores before the Fall viewpoint. I think Bill's theodicy paper addresses some of it. ajl

Jehu, Great point. If not extinct, maybe it will just evolve into a spinach and broccoli loving vegan. It certainly will adapt to giving hugs quite effectively. Someone else can test that particular random mutation, thank you. sagebrush gardener, The non-violence was before the fall (you know, the apple and the wily serpent scene), not the flood. The skin of the animal that was sacrificed to make Adam and Eve's first wardrobe foreshadows the death of Christ to shield our less-than-perfect selves in the presence of the all-consuming gaze of God. The flood and the lone ark foreshadows our escape from chaos,destructive patterns, and corrupted institutions, you know, such as Darwinian evolution theory and the Materialist mindset!! Ekstasis

I just watched that short of the very young atheist waxing poetic on ID, evolution, chistanity et al, and I was amazed that the poor fellow made no sense at all. Thosr NDE folks need to train their yungin's a little better.{1st time post] raoul7

Ekstasis, Well that would explain the child playing over the hole of the cobra. The cobra will be extinct! Jehu

Firstly, the Bible does not clearly say that prior to Noah’s flood lions and lambs got along.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Genesis 6:11-13: 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. It would appear that violence (incluing, presumably, animals eating other animals) was quite prevalent before the flood. By the way, the first death of an animal is implied in Genesis 3:21 immediately following God's cursing of Adam: 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. sagebrush gardener

bFast, C'mon, the vegetarian lion alone was worth the price of admission today. Of course it doesn't matter to ID, it doesn't even matter to creationists, but it is interesting to know these odd aspects of animal behavior. Jehu

Is it just possible that what is being communicated is a foretelling of a coming era representing the end to hostility and aggression? By the way, the leopard might need to learn pretty quickly how to make peace. Check out its shrinking range: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leopard_distribution.gif Ekstasis

Just for clarity - the actual texts (ESV): Isa 11:6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. ----------------- Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD. Borne

If the Bible were somehow totally confirmed IDists would just say:

"OK that explains what we have been observing. We should have followed Newton's lead- that is science is a way of understanding the handiwork of the Creator."

And if the Bible were somehow totally refuted IDists will then say:

"Ya see we told you not to put all your apples on that collection of books. Now would you like to get back under the tent?"

Joseph

Firstly, the Bible does not clearly say that prior to Noah’s flood lions and lambs got along. It would have been during the stay in the Garden of Eden- you know, before the talking snake and the eating from the "tree of knowledge". It has been alleged there wasn't any death before "the Fall". Which, if you start with very limited populations, can be a good thing. In the 20th century the Russians started separating the timid foxes from the litters. By continuing that trend, mating those selected, choosing the most timid, and so on, very unexpected results occurred. The ears drooped and coats changed colors- some spotted. That has led to the inference that is is very possible to artificially select from existing populations of wolf-like organisms and eventually end up with Lassie. And it is also not so hard to think that the ability to produce taurine was lost, as was most (all?) non-animal consuming ways to get that required protein. Joseph

Haha... it is weird, it is hilarious and that's just it. They're grasping at straws trying to turn it into a knock against ID as Creationism. But geesh, Creationist shoot this down. Lay people shoot this down. Dog breeders shoot it down. The silliness of their argument strikes them right back in the face. For example, half-breed, wolf-dog... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234599,00.html It took me a few seconds to find this article. And it even has a killer quote about God watching, chuckles... I love it! It destroys any rebuke of ID they're trying to make on multiple levels via religious trolling of verses they do not understand or more applicable in actual science of biology and breeding successes thru the ages. Plus, we get the added pleasure of showing just how silly it is to propose such a test. Dogs bred over thousands of years are domesticated versions of wolves. A half breed shows how silly all this nonsense about evolutionist dogma is. A half breed wolf shepherd that is domesticated and which we know can be trained to protect sheep. LOL... Either way, they failed. 1) biblical quote and understanding, 2) biology and wild animal domestication. Michaels7

Off-topic, but there are some glitches on the site still (at least when viewed on my computer - XP Pro, IE 6). Comments 1, 13, and 17 are almost flush with the left hand side (i.e. they begin left of where the author's name appears). Probably something to do with the length of the URLs quoted in those comments. trystero57

Tribune7:

Yeah, but the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen on this board was a bunch of academic types singing about how bad design means no design to the tune of the Battle Hymm of the Republic.

Hey, those guys convinced me to jump ship and become an NDE evolutionist! bFast

This is the wierdest discussion I have read on the board. Yeah, but the weirdest thing I've ever seen on this board was a bunch of academic types singing about how bad design means no design to the tune of the Battle Hymm of the Republic. tribune7

Don’t ya know… German Shepherd, God has a sense of humor? Michael7 GREAT POINT!!!! And a dog and a wolf are considered the same species (Canis Lupus) now ---- which makes when pause when pondering the accurate Bible passage as Dave noted. tribune7

I enjoy the Quaker painter Edward Hicks. http://www.quakerinfo.com/images/s823.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Edward_Hicks_-_Noah's_Ark.jpg/350px-Edward_Hicks_-_Noah's_Ark.jpg a5b01zerobone

This is the wierdest discussion I have read on the board. Firstly, the Bible does not clearly say that prior to Noah's flood lions and lambs got along. At least I can't find it. The closest I can come to is Genesis 1:30 "And to every beast ... I have given every green herb for meat..." Though this passage says that vegitation (green herb) is food, it doesn't say that the animal next door is food. Further, I cannot find where the prohibition against animals eating meat was lifted. Secondly, flood theology (the believe in a lieral Noah's flood that killed all of humanity except 7) is not part of the ID perspective, as far as I can see. Somehow someone suggested that if an interpretation of the Bible is in error, ID is toast. And their conversation was engaged. I don't get it. This doesn't merit the IDer's attention. bFast

..well.. maybe you won't like to see these atheist, but at least you might like to be more aware of them. JGuy

DaveScot, Maybe you would want to see the new breed of young atheist on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5jfQIsmmJo He uses the argument of bad design is no design. Anyway, I wanted to say it was convenient to have the recent UD posting about the inside story of this same kind of "incompetent design" strategy/mantra. So, I did respond to his video using that funny excerpt from that Geologist: "IDers will attempt to take us off-message with debates on origins of life, thermodynamics, etc." Still makes me chuckle inside. JGuy

Jehu: LOL! A vegetarian lion. Strange stuff. That reminds me of the cartoon movie Madagascar, where a lion tries to resist his animal instinct to eat his best friend, a zebra. Obligate carnivores lack the "ability" to manufacture Taurine. So they need to get that from their diet. As I have said that sort of thing would be expected from random effects on a good design. Joseph

Oh gosh, this is so easy today with information flow from around the world... Lion/Lamb... Little Tyke vegetarian in American history http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm Snake and hamster best friends in Japanese zoo... http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/and_the_snake_s.html Wolves? Canis Lupus? Heck, they can be bred to hunt themselves eventually... Irish Wolfhounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Wolfhound as well as protect livestock for humans. Seeing as how dogs are descendents of C Lupus, SheepDawgies are a good example: 52 Breeds of sheep doggies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_dog Maybe evolutionist have never heard of German Shepherds??? Fearce creatures surprisingly bred for ding, ding, sheep herding, Doh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Shepherd_Dog You'll find them listed as one of the 52 breeds. Here's a better test back at ya Darwinist. Why don't you do a fertility test with German Shepherds and Wolves. See if the pups are healthy and then raise them to protect sheep. That should be your answer in a reproductive manner of speaking. ;-) Although its already been done for thousands of years. If anyone wants to bet that wolves cannot be trained to protect sheep and in fact lie down with them, I'm sure Vegas will give odds on it. They take all suckers money. Course, I am just a layperson and may not understand evolution's finer technical points of illumination. Don't ya know... German Shepherd, God has a sense of humor? :) Michaels7

[Off-Topic]: It would be interesting to see a discussion about the J. Scott Turner book highlighted on the "Additional Descent" column to the right. jb

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" -Dr. Peter Venckman on signs of the apocalypse jimbo

WinglesS, Carnivorous animals before the flood wouldn't contradict the biblical teaching. Most literal creationists, like myself, would argue that carnivores came after Adam sinned. So, from Adam's sin to the flood we could reason for the emergence (rapid even) of killer carnivores. JGuy

LOL! A vegetarian lion. Strange stuff. That reminds me of the cartoon movie Madagascar, where a lion tries to resist his animal instinct to eat his best friend, a zebra. Jehu

WinglesS: One would not expect nested hierarchy from Common Descent because we know that traits/ characteristics can be gained and lost, only to be regained. It is also quite possible that these animals "evolved" to become obligate, ie carvivores. To tribune7- I saw that show. A lioness was taking care of a baby oryx. That was too cool. We also have cleaner fish- gong in and out of the shark's mouth... Joseph

It's possible that in the pre-flood days there were more types of vegetation that present day carnivores could feed on, instead of feeding on other animals. It's reasonable to assume that if the Biblical account were true many species of plant would have gone extinct. I think it's quite beyond our ability to know what the pre-flood days were like. All we know is that the history of human civilization extends to around 5000+ years ago, and many early myths include an account of a worldwide flood. Most of the post-flood biological remains probably turned into crude oil. WinglesS

Ekstasis, Are you suggesting the God of the bible made lions originally to kill lambs - perhaps humans too? ..regardless, I can relate to metaphors too. And I have a distinct view that some of the metaphors in the bible are dual in nature - figurative AND literal. E.g. Abraham and Isaac are a literal account, but are a kind of likeness of God the Father and Jesus the Son. JGuy

Ekstasis, I've never thought of it that way...of course it could simply be that everything will return to what it was before the fall...(coming from a Christian perspective) H.H.

That was a lion and oryx as best buds. tribune7

tribune7

Ekstasis Boy do I look like a fool. I thought you were being critical of ID all this time. My apologies. :) a5b01zerobone

I hope not to be excessively dogmatic to raise the possibility that the bible is not talking about literal lions and lambs. Rather, the Lion of Judah is Christ in his powerful reentry to our world, and the lamb was him as the past perfect sacrifice for our imperfections. Joined together, the perfect complements, just like DNA and RNA. You know, imperfections that our Darwinian friends always mention as some sort of proof that no intentional design exists. Of course, they never consider the glaring imperfections in their own pet theory. Ekstasis

Lion hugs and kisses woman who rescued, raised and cared him: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6191061805731096039&q=lion+woman&hl=en 'Little Tyke'... a lioness... and a VEGETARIAN! :) http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/lion.asp There's a book on her too... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0835606058/veganfruitari-20 JGuy