Evolution is not the real problem creationists have with evolution

In your initial post, your “proof” of death before the fall (which you erroneously claim is “undeniable” is the “fact” that death existed for “millions of years” and that YEC’s can’t deny it, but a YEC denies your “proof” instantly because of your “millions of years” comment. 

   Your question is flawed. If you wish to have this conversation based on your dictated parameters , you need to exclude YEC’s.

   And what’s with this new white on black format? It’s very distracting.

White on black format?  I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.  The weight of evidence *is* that the earth is billions of years old.  But *even if* it's not and *even if* the earth is only thousands of years old the order of appearance in the fossil record is still the same, regardless as I've reiterated.  So no matter how you slice it we have a lot of death prior to humans (plus, arborcide in the garden prior to the fall).

(And a close reading of my initial post shows that my 'millions' of years comment was in reference to invalidating evolution's millions of years; *not* an argument based on millions of years)

YEC’s don’t put the weight you do into the “order of fossils”, we deny it as evidence of a evolutionary timeline, so,again, you question is flawed to us.

My statement does not require an evolutionary timeline either.  We can say for argument sake evolution is wrong.  The order of fossils still remains the same.  As you physically hike up the Grand Canyon and follow this north to the Grand Staircase we encounter different types of life.  Nowhere in this record of dead organisms from the past do we encounter humans until we get to the 'top'.  This is an undeniable, observational fact that anyone can go out and see and that is the hard, physical evidence reality of things regardless of whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old and regardless of whether it's the result of evolution or creation.  The succession of biota is still the same. 

As far as the question, a proposed answer to the question is as I've said: to recognize that Scripture is neutral on the question of animal and plant death and does not speak to it.  It speaks to the consequence of death in relation to humanity, and strictly speaking makes no statements about how death fits in with plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.

Everything ate plants initially, and plants yield fruit they are not killed off like eating an animal when the fruit is eaten, and fruitless plants even cut/bitten in half doesn't necessarily mean it will die. Now, you still have to show me death in animals before the fall; right now, you are adding to scripture something that isn't there and suggesting what you are saying should be accepted as truth only because you say so; that isn't good enough.

No, you don't get to twist my words around.  I never said scripture said there was animal death before the fall.  I said scripture is silent on the issue and doesn't say one way or the other.   Saying scripture doesn't say anything on a topic is *not* 'adding' to scripture.  Nice spin on things though. 

I'm sorry I thought these were yours words.

"

*But here's the problem: it is undeniable that the fossil record attests to death, predation, parasitism, disease, and even cancer before humans were even around (regardless of whether one believes in an old or young earth).  This means that like it or not, there was "Death before the Fall," and no amount of saying you don't believe that will change it.  Denial is not the answer.  The issue must be addressed and wrestled with, and in fact, there are many extensive treatments on the subject, but I'm curious to know how others deal with the issue.  

*So Christians, how do you or how would you explain "Death before the Fall"?"

The thing is truth is consistent, you can say there was death before man and that means there was death before man and the scriptures are not accurate. There isn't a scriptural truth and a reality truth you don't get to have two sets of reality there is only one.

They're not two different sets of reality when they both accord with each other:

Reality 1: The record of past life on this planet shows undeniably that there were many different forms of life, many of which have gone extinct, that existed prior to humans.  Ergo, there was death before humans (and by extension, also before the fall of humans).

Reality 2: Scripture does not say one way or another if death of other (non-human) things occurred (or didn't occur) prior to humans.  Ergo, there is no contradiction when scripture is silent and does not speak to an issue.

And you haven't demonstrated otherwise.  You've quoted Romans 6:23, which refers to the wages of sin bringing death for humanity.  You also alluded to provision of fruit trees provided for Adam & Eve, and provision of animals for food provided to Noah and his family post-flood.  But again, both of those mandates were directed to humans.  There is nothing in scripture that says this applies to non-human life, such as animals eating other animals.

Again, the Bible is silent on the issue; unless you know of a scripture that unambiguously says otherwise.  If you do, then I will gladly correct and modify my statements accordingly.

A claim there was death before man means that had to happen before the fall. Suggesting this implies something not found in the text; it has to mean it is implied if reality and the text are the same. There is only one reality; if the text is not a reflection of it, a historical account, then nothing about scripture can be trusted. Jesus Christ referred to Genesis as if it were a reality. Can we trust those things He said? Dispelling Genesis means we now have several issues with our Savior. Does it mean that none of the text about Him can be trusted? All of those promises of God about Christ from at the fall and on, all that point to the Savior before His birth, life, death, then resurrection, come into question. He needed to fulfill all of these prophecies to show God was doing this, not man in the natural course of life; if the text is worthless as a reflection of reality, so the promises.

Your 2 if the text doesn't say it, you don't get to insert what you will, that is adding to the text not reading it as written.

And once again I didn't insert anything.  We have (1) an observation about the natural world that (2) scripture does not speak to one way or the other.  There are many things the Bible doesn't talk about.  You seem intent on finding a conflict where there is none.  Instead, why don't you simply quote me the scripture that says non-human animals could not have died prior to humanity's fall.

You are suggesting death before the fall, it isn't mentioned that death occurred before. The sequence of events during the creation week was quite short, clear, and to the point. You are altering the message simply by adding what you think should be there questioning the validity of the text not because the text is unclear, but because you think what you see in reality and believe about it makes you doubt the text as it is written.

As usual we disagree and once again stating the truth that scripture is not clear when it comes to the question of animal, plant, fungi death, etc. is not altering the message of anything.  You can't alter a message that isn't there, and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise.  Please don't speak to me about so-called adding or altering scripture *unless* you can quote a specific verse in the Bible that unambiguously supports your claim.  Your repeated failure to do so, despite given every opportunity demonstrates my point: the Bible speaks to death as a consequence to humanity, but says nothing one way or the other about death of plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.  If I'm wrong, then demonstrate it by a specific verse from the Bible instead of speaking in vague generalities.

   Romans 5:12 states that sin entered into the world, not just mankind. 
  You may argue with this (I strongly assume you will), but chapter 8 completely backs up the teaching that the whole creation was placed under the curse of sin (death) at the fall of Adam, and awaits the redemption . See Romans 8:18-23.

Death was a consequence to sin, NOT HUMANITY the wages of sin is death, not the wages of humanity is death. Do you see animals sinning?

I think you mean death was a consequence 'of' (not 'to') sin.  Don't know what you mean by 'wages of humanity'.  That doesn't make sense.  It's not the wages of humanity, but the wages [payment] of [humanity's] sin that is death.  Sounds like we're in agreement on that.

No, you don't see the animals sinning which is exactly my point.  The 'wages of [humans' not animals'] sin' is death (and not simply natural death, but death as a forfeiture of eternal life as the next line indicates; again, all talk of 'death' is focused on humans and stands in relation to sinful humans in need of redemption).  Sounds like we agree on that point. 

@Kjvav,

I don't think much can be made of 'world' in Romans 5:12, because the verse continues on and makes clear that the sin is again about humanity's sin (not non-human life; as TruthMuse notes animals can't sin).

However, I think you may be on to something with Romans 8:18-23.  That's the passage that came to my mind too, as a possible objection.  But it still does not provide us with a clear, unambiguous statement.  True, Romans 8:20 does allude to God's curse of the ground in Genesis 3, but importantly, while the curse comes in response to Adam & Eve's sin, neither Genesis nor Romans equates that curse with death (note in Genesis 3 that God doesn't actually pronounce a curse on Adam or Eve.  God pronounces two curses: one on the serpent, and one on the ground).  Rather, the curse is that the ground won't produce and function in the way it was orginally created to (which is the idea behind the Greek word translated 'futility'/'against its will' in Romans 8:20; i.e., not functioning properly); and, thus, the need for creation's future restoration back to its intended created purpose.

So I'm not sure Romans 8 ultimately works.  But I agree with you that it's one passage that might raise a potential objection.  It's certainly the passage I would try to appeal to, to try to muster an argument for a fallen humanity-fallen creation theology. 

The authority man had taken the whole world down when man fell, man fell and all that under his dominion. Death followed all of the life that was here; there wasn't a separate path where one form of life was dying off as a normal part of the living process, and another wasn't until the fall that is something you are adding to the narrative.

The truth is we don't know.  The text does not clearly tell us one way or the other, but is silent on the matter.