The flood, and meat eating.

it's WAY after "the fall" and completely unrelated. this is in the time of noah. i see no biblical basis for any change in the laws of nature (or animal behaviour) near the time of adam and eve's explusion from eden. yes, it would be, wouldn't? i don't think this is what actually happened, of course -- but remember in context of the story, god is essentially re-creating everything anyways. he had just unmade creation by flooding it, so the flood marks a kind of start-over point in the mythology.maybe he just made it differently the second time around, like he did with the ten (14?) commandments. he wouldn't have had to change a lot of animals -- just a boatload.

---

אָרַח

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

AH! I see it now!Brilliant!The flood provides the magical change point.So the kinds get off the boat, breed like crazy, and create all sorts of wacky carnivorus offspring!....Although... God tells noah that he can go ahead and eat the animals... wouldn't that be dangerous considering that he would be basicaly ending a species? Well... hes got 7 clean, so I guess thats ok, still I wonder how he sustains himself in the years when the world is recovering from mass animal migration, salt water inundation, and a dyoff in vegitation.

The wiki suggests that flytraps may catch only a few insects over a lifetime, yet it does need the extra nutrients: The article seems to imply that flytraps may still get along without catching insects.I think a better example of your point would be the pitcher plant:Pitcher plant - WikipediaIt is a much more succesfull "hunter" and much of its diet is insects.

or they're all magically given canines or something. *shrug* well, it's directed at the offspring of noah, ie: us, the readers. or at least the hebrews in 600 bc. but don't think i'm looking at this like a real account of an actual event -- as i said, i'm open to the high probability that the story is simply wrong. there's ample evidence against a flood, and all kinds of problems that arise from the story. just remember we're dealing with a traditional mythology. it doesn't have to make sense in modern scientific terms, just in the terms they were worried about at the time: spiritual and thematic ones.similarly, when most people go to the movies, they don't care much science is highly innaccurate -- just if the story's a good one. (or, well, if there's a lot of sex and violence. but anyways)genesis is a good story. it's not my fault if some people treat it like scientific fact. if they wanna believe it happened, that's fine. god is a god of miracles. i'm sure he could break a few of his own rules.

---

אָרַח

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

Ya I know! Isn't that awsome?It's a complex system of hydrolics and specialized cells. Though the specifics are still unknown.The first thing I thought when I read that was: "Wow, nature invented the double-click!"hehehe

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?

Did you not read the article? They grow in nitrogen poor environments. Nitrogen is the cornerstone of plant neutrition.While the plant may survive for a good while not catching insects, it will probably be a very unhealthy specimin, and I don't doubt that it's lifespan will likely be shortend.He who breeds survives. Obviously, those flytraps that catch insects live longer, are healthier, therefore they reproduce more often and more effectively.It is not a novelty, but a survival mechanism. Put it to you this way, you probably don't use your sense of smell everyday to ensure your survival. Heck, humans have one of the most underdeveloped senses of smell in the animal kingdom, is our nose 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

I humbly conceed.I think I actually confused that article with this one:Botanical Society of Americawhich states:

Sorry for the flip out

star wars is a good movie!

Welcome to EvC, darth. Enjoy your visits, please.However, I would like you to be more careful what you post where. In order to make it possible for people to follow the thread that they want to we insist that you stay on topic.You comment on "Star Wars" belongs in the Coffee House thread about movies and not anywhere else.

Part of the reason you think this is so fantastic to imagine or believe is due to your conception of reality which is incorrect. Note your comment "threw things into reverse."That suggests you still view reality within a linear, static time-line falsified now for over 80 years by general relativity, although not in whole concerning the linear part.More to the point, you assume that God is subject to this concept of time, which is the root cause of the error.What exists? What self-exists and how?Quantum physics seeks to answer the basic issues of physical existence, and the more it looks into it, the stranger it is, and the more in line with the concepts of many spiritual traditions, especially the Bible.I would suggest a more modern scientific view of the space-time universe would be to view the historic time-line as a whole. In other words, space-time is reality more than "the universe" in snapshot, which is what most people are thinking about when they speak of the universe. They and you are looking at the universe as a thing which progresses through time, point to point in time, but in reality time itself is part of the universe and all points of time are part of it.Look at the universe as a whole, including all points in time, and then you can see more clearly what I am talking about.Science is beginning to verify there are causal effects from the present backwards to the past. It's still in the beginning stages, but once you begin to see time itself as part of the universe, and the universe itself not "sitting in time" so to speak, then it gets easier to have a more modern and more scientific perspective on the universe, and incidentally, to more easily grasp biblical concepts dealing with how God does or did things.