The flood, and meat eating.

Hi all! I'm new here to the board.I grew up in a christian home. My father was a baptist minister with a masters degree in biblical studies. Everything in my life was about my faith, worship and creationism. But since childhood, many questions popped up in my mind that challenged what I had been taught.The animal kingdom and man were all herbivores before the flood, according to the belief of some Christians. This stems from the passage where God tells Noah that man can now eat the flesh of animals. This implies that before the flood, Man was not allowed to eat meat. Some Christians have taken this a step further, and have made the assumption that all living creatures did not eat flesh.This brings up the topic of flesh eating plants. Were Venus Flytraps vegetarians? I think not.Let me hear your thoughts on this.This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 03:45 PMThis message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 03:47 PM

---

"you have to remember that when Moses wrote Exodus "writing" was a new form of communication"
-JimSDA

Is the modification acceptable?

Good points. I'd like to know why the T-Rex needed those huge teeth, if all it was designed to eat were bananas and cauliflower. Or why the sabre toothed tiger has those long fangs, whose only purpose seemed to be to puncture the arteries on the neck of its prey. They served no other purpose because those fangs simply could not have chewed food. Maybe they were used to grab onto a tree and shake it so some peaches would fall off.
Why was the flytrap designed with teeth, if it wasnt allowed to eat meat? What did bacteria eat? Was there no bacteria before the fall?
I think the bottom line is, that this idea that nothing was allowed to eat flesh before the fall, is unfounded. It seems to be wishful thinking at its best. We were either designed, or adapted to eat flesh. It should be obvious from both of the evo/creation camps. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to bury our heads in the sand and think otherwise.This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-07-2005 09:12 PM

Thats a bit out there. Thats why it's called a dream. I would think a pine tree would be a little more on the poisonous side. Didnt the T-Rex in Jurassic park use it's big teeth to smash cars? I guess they are good for more than just fleash eating.
Seems people dont have a whole lot to say about this. As simple of a question as it is, it is a powerful one. Common sense, people.

Well I grew up in the church as well, (1970's)and this was considered common knowledge among all the other baptist christians I grew up around. It started out like this...Man didnt start eating flesh until after the flood, when God told them they could. Then later it somehow morphed into a post fall event.
As a child, I was born with an intense need to critically analyze everything (a traight that no one in my family had), but my parents and people in the church convinced me I was being manipulated by the devil into thinking what he wants, and not what God wants. That lasted about 5 years. My parents (although broken up 10 years ago from 20 years of cheating on each other)still think I'm a heathen for thinking for myself. I remember asking my Dad why the Jews dont believe Jesus was the messiah. His answer was, "cause they're idiots". I guess thats the powerful insight given to you when you get a masters from bible college.
Sorry to get off base here. Does the bible say anywhere, that animals were forbidden from eating one another?This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-08-2005 03:13 PM

The total lack of punctuation really derailed me with that last post. Are you saying that the dino was symbolic of God, or that it could be God, giving you a message through your dream?
Anyway, the question was, Does the bible say that animals could not eat each other before the fall.

Ive given it some more thought. Just because the animals have these huge teeth, does not mean that they were incapable of eating vegetation. Perhaps God created the animals right the first time, making them capable of eating plants or flesh, in case the need for flesh eating arose. When the flood was over, and God told Noah to start eating flesh, it was because all the vegetation was destroyed, and survival required the eating of meat.
Now this leaves me with my original question.
Can a venus flytrap survive on photosynthesis alone? Or do they have to eat the flesh of insects to survive? Why would God design a plant that could eat flesh at all? Why would He endow this one plant with this ability and not the rest? The flytrap doesnt seem to fit into the idea above.This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-13-2005 06:40 PM

Heres a quote from that same wiki article about the venus flytrap.
"A trigger hair must be touched twice in rapid succession (to prevent natural things like raindrops from triggering it)" Being that I'm an automation integrator, and deal with complex mechanisms that require the use of sensors, PLC's, this is simply amazing.
This quote answered my question: "The plants do not require insects and can thrive without eating at all"This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-13-2005 08:31 PM

Yeah, totally amazing. Given the fact, the plant doesnt require bugs at all to live, why would it be created that way, or even have evolved that way? I cant think of a reason why nature or evolution would create this. If its survival doesnt hinge on flesh eating, why is it there????? Why would it have adapted that way? Does evolution like to create a novelty?

Yes, I read the article. I know all about nitrogen. First off, bugs are not a nitrogen rich source. If anyone didnt read it, it was you. It said ""The plants do not require insects and can thrive without eating at all" AT ALL. You pulled the whole "shortened life and unhealthy specimin" thing out of a hat. The article says it will THRIVE without eating AT ALL.
Also, another clue that you didnt pay attention to the article, was the fact that you thought it would live a longer life if it ate bugs. The article says the plant will be lucky to eat maybe 3 insects in its lifetime, and then it dies.
"He who breeds survives. Obviously, those flytraps that catch insects live longer, are healthier, therefore they reproduce more often and more effectively."
You say "obviously", but you completely and "obviously" made a huge assumption here thats based on nothing. You made it up. The article says nothing about more insects=longer life.
Anyway, this is from another article.
"Christensen ‘s (1976) data shows that in low nitrogen and phosphorous environments, carnivory is an important process. These statements are a direct contradiction of work done by Plummer (1964). In his studies he too agrees with the nutrient uptake by sarracenia sp. plants, but finds that the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous elements to be negligible; whereas, the amount of metallic ion uptake is integral to the survival of the plant. Plummer (1964) showed that the low levels of potassium might be related to the uptake of asparagine, leucine, tyrosine, phenylalanine, lysine, and arganine from their insect prey. Plummer (1963) also states that the productivity of the habitat decreases through the year, which may mean that carnivorous plants may get more benefit from metallic ions, than from nitrogen."This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 07-14-2005 02:23 PM

---

"you have to remember that when Moses wrote Exodus "writing" was a new form of communication"
-JimSDA

Sorry for the flip out

The whole idea that they didnt know their days, months and years, is ridiculous. Right from the beginning, they called the evening and the morning "the first day". The calendar they used was different to a small degree, but every 13 years or so, they would add an extra month to the year to balance it out. A year was 1 rotation around the sun, just as it is today. They knew what a year was...especially Moses (The guy who compiled the genesis story) who was a highly educated son of egyptian royalty. People have tried to write off 1 year as 1 rotation of the moon. If that were the case, methuselah would have had his first kid when he was 5 years old. Its thought that the lifespan of every living creature was longer. Dont lizards grow their entire life? Imagine how big a lizard would get if it lived 500 years. Ever see how big insects and other small animals grow in very humid climates? My friend moved to mississippi for 4 years, and he was screaming on the phone about a praying mantis close to him that was the size of a cat. (I know not that big but thats the idea). The genesis story describes a firmament above. This gaseous canopy (Hey why not? Look at all those planets covered in a gas canopy?) would have created a greenhouse effect for the entire earth. No direct sun radiation, equal temperature around the earth, and huge creatures just like in humid climates. No genetic mutation caused by solar radiation (among other things that enter our atmosphere that are known to damage DNA). Imagine not only your DNA being damaged, but the DNA in every animal you eat has changed. The RNA in every plant you eat has changed. All this genetic code continues to change through time. Who knows. All I know is that the trend of this thread doesnt resemble the original question at all.

I have plants that are in shade all the time, yet thrive beautifully. Even scattered UV (shades and through clouds), is sufficient to allow photosynthesis. I forget what is is that rips through our bodies 24/7 and literally breaks sections of our DNA apart..it's neutron particles or something like that, that are constantly bombarding us from space. I have no idea what effect a thick atmosphere would have on this...if it would block them to any extent. As to the composition of this upper atmosphere, i dont know. People say that water is too heavy to build a canopy, but thats not true of water vapor....Duh. Stratus clouds are higher than 40,000 feet, and are made of ice particles. Then there are clouds in the lower area of the atmosphere. I imagine it would be possible to have another layer up there at some time in the past..who knows. Maybe it could have been a completely different gas. Who knows. The evidence points at Mars having had a thicker atmosphere and being covered in water at some time. But where did it go? Having a different gas distribution could affect the amount of carbon 14 one absorbs, therefore giving false carbon dating results. There was some ice drilling quite some time ago, and they (dont know who "they" are) found the ancient oxygen content to be higher, as well as some other differences. The conclusion they drew, was that the earth was riddled with 200-300 mph winds globally. Yeah..ok.As far as the vitamin D thing goes, we obviously have the ability to adapt to conditions. And it definetely doesnt appear to take millions of years to do so. The equatorial people developed darker skin to block an over production of vitamin D..thats what the scientists say. I dont know why evolution wouldnt just have preferred to adjust on a hormonal level instead of changing the amount of melanin. Perhaps dark pigmentation didnt start showing up until some time after the canopy was gone. You look at the adaptive rate of some creatures, and it would appear that it doesnt take very long for certain types of adaptation to occur. I definetely dont agree with creationists that ignore adaptation. Its very real. I just dont think it takes as long as scientists think. Scientists havent been observing this type of adaptation long enough to draw any conclusive data. For them to assume (and then state as fact) it takes millions of years to adapt to the sun, is pretty arrogant. There are many many things that have never been observed, yet touted as fact. They havent been alive long enough to observe much of anything on a "millions of years" timespan. Just like many creationists, they make a huge amount of assumptions, then build a theory around a mix of hard data and alot of assumptions. But its really hard for them to ever admit they made assumptions.Anything that is subject to change (like the theory of evolution), can never be stated as a fact at any time, because the theory itself is in a constant state of change. They always say its a fact, yet how can a "fact" be subject to constant change?This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 09-16-2005 09:57 PMThis message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/09/16 07:12 PM