Question for Fans of Answers in Genesis
rev.goetz
Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
Geoff
news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
rev.goetz
Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
Dear Rev. Goetz,
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I apologize that it has
taken me so long to respond as we have been quite busy. I'm glad
that you asked the question about octopuses and squid. Attached is an
article about what animals can be considered "living" and
"nonliving" based on a biblical definition. Octopuses and even
giant squid could be considered "nonliving" creatures and the
article will explain why.
Considering death was not introduced until Adam sinned there would have
been no such thing as an "accidental death". I understand that it
is hard to imagine such a world, but we need to remember that we live
in a world completely changed by death, sin and suffering. We see
death all the time, it is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to
imagine a world without any death, especially since that is something
we have never experienced. Another thing we have to remember is
God's sustaining power. Before sin, God had created everything
'very good'. However, once sin entered the world He no longer
sustained creation in its perfect state. He still sustains His
creation (Col. 1:17), but no longer sustains it in perfect condition.
An example of God's sustaining power is when the Israelites were
wandering through the wilderness for forty years their "clothing did
not wear out and their feet did not swell" (Deut. 8:4; 29:5).
God's sustaining power explains why there were no "accidental
deaths" before the fall. So as part of the curse God withdrew some
of His sustaining power, hence then allowing death to enter His
creation.
Which animals in the sea are considered "living" [nephesh chayyah]
biblically?
By today's scientific definition, squid, octopuses and other
invertebrate sea creatures (mollusks, cephalopods, crustaceans, etc.)
are considered living creatures. But are they biblically defined as
"living creatures"? We can shed some light on this subject and
possibly define "living" sea creatures and "nonliving" sea
creatures based on Scripture.
Are there any "living creatures" in the sea?
>From Genesis 1:20-22, we find there were indeed living creatures in the
sea. The term for living creature is nephesh chay(yah):
02416 yx chay
Alive, live living, raw (flesh)
05315. vpn nephesh
Soul, life, living being, creature
These are used in Genesis 1:20-22 so we should expect to find living
creatures in the sea that can die or be killed.
>From a cursory glance at the Scriptures, we find that fish (Exodus
7:21) and large sea creatures like leviathan can die (Isaiah 27:1),
hence alive.
Defining life closely
There are two key components to defining "life" by the Bible.
Obviously, the first is nephesh chayyah, and is mimicked with land
animals as well as man. However with man it is often translated as
living soul, as opposed to creature. This is still different from being
made in the image of God which makes man distinctly different from
animals.
The next factor is revealed in Genesis 9.
Genesis 9:3-4
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to
you, as I gave the green plant. "Only you shall not eat flesh with its
life, that is, its blood.
This verse indicates that life is in the blood. This is confirmed in
Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well:
Leviticus 17:13-14
"Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell
among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten,
he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; "for it is the life
of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the
children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for
the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut
off.'
Deuteronomy 12:23
"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you
shall not eat the life with the flesh.
The Hebrew word for red blood is 01818. Md dam dawm. It is a variation
of the Hebrew word Adam which means "man" or "red". This goes
back to God breathing life into the man He created from dust in Genesis
1 and 2. God breathed life (blood) into Adam and he appeared with the
reddish color in the face due to the blood - hence the name
"Adam" for the first man.
0119. Mda 'adam aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or
turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
Why is this significant?
We know that a creature that is considered alive contains blood. Fish
are considered living creatures (nephesh chayyâh) according to the
Bible. But octopuses and squid also have a type of blood; couldn't
they be considered "living creatures" as well, like fish?
Fish have red blood which is what makes them a "living creature".
However, octopuses and squid (and other such sea creatures, or
invertebrates) have blue blood. This may be significant. What makes the
blood red or blue?
A human's (or animal's) blood needs to be able to carry oxygen to
the different parts of the body. This is done by red blood cells in
humans and animals that contain hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is a red pigment
contained in the red blood cells which is why our blood is red.
Hemoglobin is essential for the life of an animal since it has heme
which contain iron ions. The iron in each heme group binds to and
transports oxygen.1 It is also interesting to note that heme (or haem)
comes from the Latin-Greek root for "blood". And in the Greek text
of the New Testament the Greek word for "blood" is aima haima
hah'-ee-mah.
Octopuses and most invertebrate creatures like most mollusks, and some
arthropods, have blood that contains hemocyanins that are used to carry
oxygen. These hemocyanins are metalloproteins that have a similar
function to hemoglobin in that they carry oxygen through the blood. But
instead of containing iron, like the hemoglobin, hemocyanin contains
two copper atoms that reversibly bind a single oxygen molecule. When
the copper atoms are not carrying oxygen they are colorless, however
when the copper is carrying oxygen it becomes blue. Also, the
hemocyanin is dissolved in the plasma instead of being bound in red
blood cells, like hemoglobin. So when these copper atoms in the
hemocyanin carry oxygen it gives the blood of invertebrates its blue
color.2,3
Other oxygen binding proteins in the blood of invertebrates include
hemerythrin and pinnaglobin. Hemerythrin contains iron in a non-heme
protein and appears pink/violet when oxygenated and clear when not.
Pinnaglobin is a manganese based porphyrin protein that appears brown.
Let's go back to Genesis 1
Let's go back to the creation of sea creatures in Genesis 1 and look
at it closely. I'm including some of the Hebrew words in the passages
without translation:
Genesis 1:20-21
Then God said, "Let the waters teem (08318 Urv sherets)( 02416 yx
chay)( 05315. vpn nephesh), and let birds fly above the earth in the
open expanse of the heavens." God created the great sea monsters and
every (02416 yx chay)( 05315. vpn nephesh)( 07430. smr ramas), with
which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after
its kind; and God saw that it was good.
08318 Urv sherets
Teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers, insects, animals, small
reptiles, quadrupeds
02416 yx chay
Alive, live living, raw (flesh)
05315. vpn nephesh
Soul, life, living being, creature
07430. smr ramas
Creep, move teem, swarm,
Translations of these verses sometimes read: "living creatures that
move" or "living and moving creatures". The translation that
makes more sense says "living and moving creatures" as it indicates
there are living and non living creatures in the sea. Perhaps a more
appropriate translation (that would also be easier to understand) could
read:
And God said, "Let the waters teem with swarming things and living
creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living and
moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Further support for this comes from Leviticus 11:10.
Leviticus 11:10
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
rivers, of all that move <08318> (sherets-swarming things) in the
waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall
be] an abomination unto you."
Arthur Jones even concluded in the CRSQ in 1973 that invertebrates were
not life because they didn't contain flesh (which is what blood
supplies the life to)4:
"All the animals taken on the Ark are described as basar,
"flesh." This term (when used of
whole living animals rather than simply the animals body) is never used
of invertebrate animals."
Conclusion
Many scientists make the distinction that vertebrates have hemoglobin,
hence red blood, and invertebrates contain other oxygen transporting
proteins, like hemocyanins, and do not have red blood. As far as
we've researched at this time, all vertebrates have hemoglobin and
invertebrates do not, though there may be exceptions we are not aware
of.
So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain
hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
(pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is
further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm)
is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis
1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
"living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in
the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living"
creature is one that contains red blood.
References
1 Mader, Sylvia S. Chapter 13 Cardiovascular System. Inquiry into Life:
10th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York 2003: p.250.
2 James R. Redmond (dept. of Zoology, UCLA); "The Respiratory Function
of Hemocyanin in Crustacea", Journal of Cellular and Comparative
Physiology 46 (October 1955):209-242. Reprinted in Bradley T. Sheer,
ed.; Comparative Physiology: A Book of Readings; (Wm. C. Brown Company
Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa; 1968), pp. 162-194.
3 P. J. Mill (Dr., Lecturer in Zoology, The University of Leeds);
Respiration in the Invertebrates; (Macmillan, St, Martins' Press, N.
Y.; 1972).
4 Arthur J. Jones; How many animals on the Ark?; Creation Research
Society Quarterly; Volume 10; September 1973; Page 103
Bob D
rev.goetz wrote:
> So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
> red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain
> hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
> (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is
> further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm)
> is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis
> 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
> "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in
> the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living"
> creature is one that contains red blood.
So *that* is what lions, tigers and all those other pesky carnivores
ate in that blessed garden. Dead/non-living animals.
Also this does make a bit more room in that ark. No need for anything
other than vertebrates. Wonder what type of blood all those carnivorous
dinosaurs had, and how *they* managed to get hold of enough shell fish
to eat. Or maybe they made do with beetles and ants 'n stuff. Pity
about those big teeth though.
rev.goetz
Well, AiG claims that lions and tigers (oh my) were vegetarians before
the first human sin.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp
coaster
> So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
> red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain
> hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
> (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is
> further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm)
> is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis
> 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
> "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in
> the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living"
> creature is one that contains red blood.
*cough*giant tube worms*cough*.
Pardon me I had something caught in my throat. Oh God! It was a giant
tube worm!
Sla#s
<SNIP>>
> Well, AiG claims that lions and tigers (oh my) were vegetarians before
> the first human sin.
We had someone come to the door saying, "wouldn't you like to live in a
world where the lamb could lay down with the lion" our answer obviously was,
"what would the lion eat?"
Their answer was that during WWII the lions in London zoo were fed on straw!
That was a lie. (Gosh what a surprise. Why do these Christians keep doing
this?)
It's a lie because all the dangerous animals were moved from London Zoo to
Whipsnade zoo. Well someone figured it out, what if a bomb knocked down the
wall of the tiger enclosure? The air raid wardens had enough to worry about
without that complication!
Slatts
slothrop
<the first human sin.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp
Oh my God, has everyone read this???
I'm reminded of one of Michael Shermer's answers to the question "Why
do smart people believe in stupid things?" One answer is that they're
smart enough to rationalize their way into beliefs that your average
bear can't. I don't think this fact is appreciated enough by people
arguing with creationists/fundies. There is some thoughtful convoluting
going on in that AiG world...
slothrop
Desertphile
Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous. The gods gist made
sharks (and tigers, as Mark Twain pointed out) with meat-eating teeth
because the gods knew in advance that the First People would usher in
death.
Desertphile
Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous. The gods just made
neverbetter
rev.goetz wrote:
> We know that a creature that is considered alive contains blood. Fish
> are considered living creatures (nephesh chayyâh) according to the
> Bible.
I want to know how the animals that ate plankton before the Fall
avoided ever eating any tiny fish eggs or larvae by accident. How did
they sieve them out?
Dave
be more Adamesque to be a crazy vegan?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:58:29 -0800, Desertphile wrote:
> Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
> First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
> will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous.
Not just herbivorous, but very cautious herbivores, too. Last I checked,
it was actually rather easy to kill a plant by eating too much of it.
Greg G.
Dinosaurs didn't have red blood, so they could eat each other. That's
why Noah didn't have them on the ark, either. Lions and tigers and
bears, oh my, could eat the small dinosaurs. And don't forget how big
the dragonflies were. Quite a meal! The giant chocolate covered ants
were so tasty, none went to waste as fossils.
--
Greg G.
What's all this about hellfire and dalmatians?
Bob D
slothrop wrote:
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp
>
>
> Oh my God, has everyone read this???
> slothrop
An amazing piece of writing. Every Fundamental Christian should be
forced to read it. Their churches will empty in a weekend. (Hmm. Why
don't I believe what I just wrote).
The Last Conformist
rev.goetz wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> > "rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > >I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
> > >
> > > Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
> > >
> > > Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
> > > answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
> >
> > I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
> > If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
> > have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
>
> Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
[snip AiG reply]
If this Biblical concept of "alive" excludes octopods, surely
translating it as "alive" is simply wrong?
Nosterill
So they must have been fruitarians, and only eaten the fruit and nuts
without killing the plant. If they had done that then it would also
have involved eating fertilised seeds......OMG! The first abortionists!!
Von R. Smith
What a fantastic display of hermeneutic ducking and weaving. I suppose
that means, on the other hand, that invertebrates never ate any fish
before the fall.
Geoff
>
> Geoff wrote:
>> "rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
>> >
>> > Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
>> >
>> > Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
>> > answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
>>
>> I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
>> If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
>> have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
>
> Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
Which, of course, is why I added the conditional "if octopi be
considered alive". I knew that AiG and other creationists employ
some pretty crazy rationalizations when bending science to fit
Genesis.
Take note, Matt Silberstein. Tell me these aren't mental contortions.
SeppoP
> Geoff wrote:
>> "rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
>>>
>>> Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
>>>
>>> Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
>>> answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
>> I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
>> If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
>> have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
>
> Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
>
> Dear Rev. Goetz,
>
<snip>
>
> We know that a creature that is considered alive contains blood. Fish
> are considered living creatures (nephesh chayyâh) according to the
> Bible. But octopuses and squid also have a type of blood; couldn't
> they be considered "living creatures" as well, like fish?
>
> Fish have red blood which is what makes them a "living creature".
> However, octopuses and squid (and other such sea creatures, or
> invertebrates) have blue blood. This may be significant. What makes the
> blood red or blue?
Interesting bit of creationist science.
Apparently this means that those fish that do not have hemoglobin in their blood (family of Ice fish fond around the
Antarctica) are not alive? (Maybe they are just undead?) Could you verify this from the esteemed scientists at AIG?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Wakboth
Nosterill kirjoitti:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > [snips]
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:58:29 -0800, Desertphile wrote:
> >
> > > Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
> > > First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
> > > will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous.
> >
> > Not just herbivorous, but very cautious herbivores, too. Last I checked,
> > it was actually rather easy to kill a plant by eating too much of it.
>
> So they must have been fruitarians, and only eaten the fruit and nuts
> without killing the plant.
That one didn't work, either. Look what happened when Eve tried the
apple...
-- Wakboth
Nosterill
Good point. Maybe they lived on manna from heaven, whatever that is.
coaster
Manna (or 'm' for short) are magical points which players in religious
hierarchies use to cast magical spells. A level 1 church-goer has
almost no manna. A level 47 priest may have 1000 - 2000m depending
upon the equipment he's wearing. The "Turin's Reignment" gear has a
+500m buff. It's good stuff but costs a mint! A level 60 Pope is
topped out at 6000m without buffs... like he needs them. I mean once
you can solo Satan the game is pretty much over, right?
Ye Old One
Von R. Smith
nmp wrote:
> Von R. Smith wrote:
>
>
> > What a fantastic display of hermeneutic ducking and weaving. I suppose
> > that means, on the other hand, that invertebrates never ate any fish
> > before the fall.
>
> eats it? Quite interesting ;)
>
> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7004909622962894202>
That's freakin' cool. Thanks!
But of course, that proves nothing, since the video was taken *after*
the Fall, right? ;)
Mike Painter
I have had a cartoon in mind for many years.
It shows a spider in a web. There are grapes with wings flying around and on
the ground below the web is a pile of raisons.
Von R. Smith
Btw, any good, obvious examples of invertebrates that rely entirely, or
almost entirely, on killing vertebrates for food? I know some
cnidarians sting and eat a lot of fish, but is that the bulk of their
diet?
Tiny Bulcher
There is a thing you wouldn't wish to find under your bed called a
Bird-Eating Spider (Theraphosa blondi), which rather sadly does not eat
birds very often, but does lunch regularly on frogs, lizards and indeed
anything it can lay its fangs on. I saw one at the zoo once, as a young
an impressionable child, and it scared the crap out of me.
Tiny, arachnophobe
Dana Tweedy
"Von R. Smith" <trak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143053507.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
snip
>
> Btw, any good, obvious examples of invertebrates that rely entirely, or
> almost entirely, on killing vertebrates for food? I know some
> cnidarians sting and eat a lot of fish, but is that the bulk of their
> diet?
The Giant Squid eats fish, and apparently attacks prey as large as a sperm
whale. See:
http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/squid.htm
DJT
>
The Last Conformist
Considering the relative sizes, I'm pretty doubtful about their
suggestion that giant squid would attack sperm whales rather than the
other way round.
Tiny Bulcher
Good grief, how did I forget old Architeuthis? I did a talk on him not
long ago. Fascinating creatures. But you are I think incorrect in
saying they prey on sperm whales. 'Tis the other way about. (Bet they
put up a hell of a fight, mind).
Tiny
Tiny Bulcher
nmp wrote:
Hmm. Can't see those whales diving all that way down just for a fight.
> Does any such predator-predator relationship exist in the natural world?
>
> I guess not but it would be very interesting, natural selection-wise.
There may be examples of creatures preying on each others
young/eggs/dead, but I shouldn't think it would happen otherwise.
Trying to eat something that is also capable of eating you doesn't seem
like much of a survival strategy.
Tiny
Rich Townsend
A colleague of mine used to work up in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, in a
hill-tribe village. He tells me that there was a preying mantis that lived on
his window sill, that would catch and eat lizards.
Then, of course, there's the bird-eating spiders...
cheers,
Rich
neverbetter
Nah, there's no haemoglobin in plants, so they aren't alive and can't
be killed. However, if their genes were manipulated and someone
inserted a haemoglobin gene in their genomes they would become living
creatures.
Windy
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> >> The Last Conformist wrote:
> >> > Considering the relative sizes, I'm pretty doubtful about their
> >> > suggestion that giant squid would attack sperm whales rather than the
> >> > other way round.
> >>
> >> What if these two species prey on *each other*?
> >
> > Hmm. Can't see those whales diving all that way down just for a fight.
No, they dive for dinner :) But I agree that it would make most sense
if sperm whales attack giant squid first, and then the squid fight
back.
> Good point. And they are diving for squid, right? Not for octopuses.
>
> I would like to see what they do down there.
Definitely. But it is squid and not octopus that is suspected to
grapple with sperm whales. Although octopuses are catching up in size:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1898313.stm
> > There may be examples of creatures preying on each others
> > young/eggs/dead, but I shouldn't think it would happen otherwise.
> > Trying to eat something that is also capable of eating you doesn't seem
> > like much of a survival strategy.
>
> But that is why it would be interesting. A real arms race, that would lead
> to very rapid evolution. That, or extinction of either species :)
Why not? Fish do it all the time. But ok, normally the eatee has to be
slightly smaller, so maybe it would go in the "eating the young"
category. And humans can eat bears and vice versa.
If both species would exclusively eat each other, that might be
problematic from the arms race point of view, but more important IMO is
that the energy conversion from prey to predator in the food chain is
not that efficient. If sperm whales and giant squid would suddenly
start eating only each other, the food web would not be getting any new
energy and both species would inevitably die out.
-- w
AC
>
> Geoff wrote:
>> "rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
>> >
>> > Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
>> >
>> > Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
>> > answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
>>
>> I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
>> If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
>> have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
>
> Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
>
> Dear Rev. Goetz,
>
> taken me so long to respond as we have been quite busy. I'm glad
> that you asked the question about octopuses and squid. Attached is an
> article about what animals can be considered "living" and
> "nonliving" based on a biblical definition. Octopuses and even
> giant squid could be considered "nonliving" creatures and the
> article will explain why.
This is the sort of pure bullshit explanation that, if they were giving it
to you in person, they would immediately go "Oh, look, it's my sister's best
friend. Susan!!!! Susan!!!! Wait for me!!!!!!!!"
<snip the unbearably stupid>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
pzm...@gmail.com
going to define life as having hemoglobin and red blood.
Human embryos don't form any blood cells until roughly the 5th week of
development.
Implications left as an exercise for the reader.
Jim Heckman
On 22-Mar-2006, Rich Townsend <rh...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu>
wrote in message <dvshos$s9l$1...@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>:
> Von R. Smith wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Btw, any good, obvious examples of invertebrates that rely entirely, or
> > almost entirely, on killing vertebrates for food? I know some
> > cnidarians sting and eat a lot of fish, but is that the bulk of their
> > diet?
> >
> A colleague of mine used to work up in the mountains of Papua New Guinea,
> in a
> hill-tribe village. He tells me that there was a preying mantis that lived
> on his window sill, that would catch and eat lizards.
>
> Then, of course, there's the bird-eating spiders...
There are also spiders specialized to sit on the water's surface,
or perch on foliage just above it, and catch and eat small fish.
Then there are diving-bell spiders that build silken nests in
underwater foliage (they breathe by trapping air in specialized
hairs on their abdomen, and also ferry air to their bells that way)
that certainly catch and eat fish, too. But I'm not sure how much
of their diet consists of fish, as opposed to fresh-water insects.
And I'd be surprised if fish weren't the major part of the diet of
at least the larger squid species, say for example the Humbolt(sp?)
squid.
--
Jim Heckman
Radix2
Nosterill wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > [snips]
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:58:29 -0800, Desertphile wrote:
> >
> > > Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
> > > First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
> > > will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous.
> >
> > Not just herbivorous, but very cautious herbivores, too. Last I checked,
> > it was actually rather easy to kill a plant by eating too much of it.
>
> So they must have been fruitarians, and only eaten the fruit and nuts
> without killing the plant. If they had done that then it would also
> have involved eating fertilised seeds......OMG! The first abortionists!!
Actually, the creationists attempt to dodge this one by claiming that
plants are not alive in a "biblical sense". It has something to do
with some reference to life requiring "breath and blood" even though
plants do breathe and have a blood equivalent.
Mike Painter
>>
>
> A colleague of mine used to work up in the mountains of Papua New
> Guinea, in a hill-tribe village. He tells me that there was a preying
> mantis that lived on his window sill, that would catch and eat
> lizards.
I got bit by a small mantis one day trying to move it, as I have many
others, to a safe spot. What an odd and painful surprise. It did not draw
blood, the pain was not bad but far out of proportion in both quality and
duration. I wondered if it just hit a nerve or something.
One big enough to catch a lizard might do a lot of damage to a finger.
arachnophilia
rebutt aig's point.
> Translations of these verses sometimes read: "living creatures that
> move" or "living and moving creatures". The translation that
> makes more sense says "living and moving creatures" as it indicates
> there are living and non living creatures in the sea. Perhaps a more
> appropriate translation (that would also be easier to understand) could
> read:
>
> And God said, "Let the waters teem with swarming things and living
> creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
> heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living and
> moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
> every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
genesis says, and i quote:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם
הַגְּדֹלִים; וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ
הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת
v'ye-bera elohym et-ha-tanynm ha-gadolym; v'et kol-nefesh ha-chayah
ha-romeset...
and-created god (direct object)-the-serpents the-big; and-(direct
object) every-soul the-living the-moving. "and god created the great
serpents, and every living, moving creature..."
now, i don't read hebrew THAT well, so i might have muddled up a bit
here and there. but in hebrew, you match adjectives to the noun they
modify. if it's plural, you match the plural ending. if it's a specific
"proper" noun, with a ha- out front, you add ha- to adjective.
so look at it abit more closely. you'll notice that two adjectives that
modify "creature" are bot singular, female, and specific, like the noun
they modify. there is no "living creature" and "moving creature," each
creature both lives and moves.
now, aig might have a point a few lines down:
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its
kind.' And it was so.
here, it separates those that live, from those that creep, from beasts
of the earth, from cattle. but even here, it's a bit of a stretch. are
cattle not beasts of the field? or alive? do they not move? and if
genesis 1:21 makes no separate, why should 1:25? also, 21 mentions fowl
-- are fowl not alive?
> Further support for this comes from Leviticus 11:10.
>
> Leviticus 11:10
>
> "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
> rivers, of all that move <08318> (sherets-swarming things) in the
> waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall
> be] an abomination unto you."
"all that move in the waters" and "any living thing which is in the
waters" are a pair. they're parallels. that's why it's useful to have a
bible that actually has the line breaks where it should. but the point
is that they are SYNONYMOUS parallels. they mean the same thing.
as for the the whole red vs. blue blood thing? considering that the
"great serpents" above are the לויתנים (livyatanym -- the modern
hebrew word for "whale")... i don't think they got too close to a giant
squid either. how many people today even know that a squid's blood is
not red?
John Wilkins
> refered here from religion community on lj. thought i'd reply, to
> rebutt aig's point.
>
>> Translations of these verses sometimes read: "living creatures that
>> move" or "living and moving creatures". The translation that
>> makes more sense says "living and moving creatures" as it indicates
>> there are living and non living creatures in the sea. Perhaps a more
>> appropriate translation (that would also be easier to understand) could
>> read:
>>
>> And God said, "Let the waters teem with swarming things and living
>> creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
>> heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living and
>> moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
>> every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
>
> genesis says, and i quote:
>
> ×�Ö·×�֌ְ×�Ö¹×�ÖŽ×�×�; ×�Ö°×�ֵת ×�֌֞×�-× Ö¶×€Ö¶×©×�
> �ַ�ַ�֌֞� �֞ךֹ�ֶש�ֶת
>
> v'ye-bera elohym et-ha-tanynm ha-gadolym; v'et kol-nefesh ha-chayah
> ha-romeset...
>
> and-created god (direct object)-the-serpents the-big; and-(direct
> object) every-soul the-living the-moving. "and god created the great
> serpents, and every living, moving creature..."
>
> now, i don't read hebrew THAT well, so i might have muddled up a bit
> here and there. but in hebrew, you match adjectives to the noun they
> modify. if it's plural, you match the plural ending. if it's a specific
> "proper" noun, with a ha- out front, you add ha- to adjective.
>
> so look at it abit more closely. you'll notice that two adjectives that
> modify "creature" are bot singular, female, and specific, like the noun
> they modify. there is no "living creature" and "moving creature," each
> creature both lives and moves.
>
> now, aig might have a point a few lines down:
>
> 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
> its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its
> kind.' And it was so.
>
> here, it separates those that live, from those that creep, from beasts
> of the earth, from cattle. but even here, it's a bit of a stretch. are
> cattle not beasts of the field? or alive? do they not move? and if
> genesis 1:21 makes no separate, why should 1:25? also, 21 mentions fowl
> -- are fowl not alive?
No, I read that as "livekinds(cattle, creeping things, beast of the earth)"
>
>> Further support for this comes from Leviticus 11:10.
>>
>> Leviticus 11:10
>>
>> "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
>> rivers, of all that move <08318> (sherets-swarming things) in the
>> waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall
>> be] an abomination unto you."
>
> "all that move in the waters" and "any living thing which is in the
> waters" are a pair. they're parallels. that's why it's useful to have a
> bible that actually has the line breaks where it should. but the point
> is that they are SYNONYMOUS parallels. they mean the same thing.
>
> as for the the whole red vs. blue blood thing? considering that the
> "great serpents" above are the ×�×�×�×ª× ×�×� (livyatanym -- the modern
> hebrew word for "whale")... i don't think they got too close to a giant
> squid either. how many people today even know that a squid's blood is
> not red?
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?
arachnophilia
not a science textbook" has been lost on them long ago.
arachnophilia
that's probably what it means, yes. i'm just saying they'd have a
better chance of sneaking by with their grammar-gymnastics, because two
aren't explicitly linked as a single phrase in the grammar.
either way, they'd still be wrong. any sensible person would read it
the way you just did.
Von R. Smith
Windy wrote:
> nmp wrote:
> > Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> > >> The Last Conformist wrote:
> > >> > Considering the relative sizes, I'm pretty doubtful about their
> > >> > suggestion that giant squid would attack sperm whales rather than the
> > >> > other way round.
> > >>
> > >> What if these two species prey on *each other*?
> > >
> > > Hmm. Can't see those whales diving all that way down just for a fight.
>
> No, they dive for dinner :) But I agree that it would make most sense
> if sperm whales attack giant squid first, and then the squid fight
> back.
>
> > Good point. And they are diving for squid, right? Not for octopuses.
> >
> > I would like to see what they do down there.
>
> Definitely. But it is squid and not octopus that is suspected to
> grapple with sperm whales.
"To the last I grapple with thee!"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Tiny Bulcher
Windy wrote:
> nmp wrote:
> > Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> > >> The Last Conformist wrote:
> > >> > Considering the relative sizes, I'm pretty doubtful about their
> > >> > suggestion that giant squid would attack sperm whales rather than the
> > >> > other way round.
> > >>
> > >> What if these two species prey on *each other*?
> > >
> > > Hmm. Can't see those whales diving all that way down just for a fight.
>
> No, they dive for dinner :) But I agree that it would make most sense
> if sperm whales attack giant squid first, and then the squid fight
> back.
Well, certainly the squid get et, judging by the contents of
sperm-whale stomachs. You can't help feeling the poor old sperm-whale
got the shitty end of the evolutionary stick there, when you contrast
the performance it has to go through for a lunch compared to the easy
time the baleen whales have.
Tiny
Peter Ellis
>
> So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
> red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain
> hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
> (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is
> further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm)
> is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis
> 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
> "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in
> the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living"
> creature is one that contains red blood.
Interesting. Since the human embryo does not develop red blood cells
until about the 5th week of development, does this have implications
for the pro-life debate? If the embryo is non-living until it has
blood, it's not clear where the sin lies.
tomfoolery
Most AiG emails (and I've exchanged a few) come with a specific
disclaimer at the bottom that does not grant the recipient the right to
post to a bulletin board/forum/etc.
Was this fellow asked for permission to post this?
On the content of his response: Biblicists will contort all logic and
defy reason to emphasize one interpretation or another. Exactly how
alligators and crocodiles and snakes and etc etc etc did not break the
"no death before the Fall" is one of the prime ways they do
logic-pretzels.
rev.goetz wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> > "rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1142951209.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > >I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
> > >
> > > Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
> > >
> > > Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
> > > answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
> >
> > I think the stock answer is that there was no death before The Fall.
> > If octopi be considered alive and being consumed by a shark would
> > have resulted in death, then the answer would have to be no.
>
> Well, Geoff, AiG already told me that octopus are not alive.
>
> Dear Rev. Goetz,
>
> Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I apologize that it has
> taken me so long to respond as we have been quite busy. I'm glad
> that you asked the question about octopuses and squid. Attached is an
> article about what animals can be considered "living" and
> "nonliving" based on a biblical definition. Octopuses and even
> giant squid could be considered "nonliving" creatures and the
> article will explain why.
>
> Considering death was not introduced until Adam sinned there would have
> been no such thing as an "accidental death". I understand that it
> is hard to imagine such a world, but we need to remember that we live
> in a world completely changed by death, sin and suffering. We see
> death all the time, it is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to
> imagine a world without any death, especially since that is something
> we have never experienced. Another thing we have to remember is
> God's sustaining power. Before sin, God had created everything
> 'very good'. However, once sin entered the world He no longer
> sustained creation in its perfect state. He still sustains His
> creation (Col. 1:17), but no longer sustains it in perfect condition.
> An example of God's sustaining power is when the Israelites were
> wandering through the wilderness for forty years their "clothing did
> not wear out and their feet did not swell" (Deut. 8:4; 29:5).
> God's sustaining power explains why there were no "accidental
> deaths" before the fall. So as part of the curse God withdrew some
> of His sustaining power, hence then allowing death to enter His
> creation.
>
> Which animals in the sea are considered "living" [nephesh chayyah]
> biblically?
>
> By today's scientific definition, squid, octopuses and other
> invertebrate sea creatures (mollusks, cephalopods, crustaceans, etc.)
> are considered living creatures. But are they biblically defined as
> "living creatures"? We can shed some light on this subject and
> possibly define "living" sea creatures and "nonliving" sea
> creatures based on Scripture.
>
> Are there any "living creatures" in the sea?
>
> >From Genesis 1:20-22, we find there were indeed living creatures in the
> sea. The term for living creature is nephesh chay(yah):
>
> 02416 yx chay
>
> Alive, live living, raw (flesh)
>
> 05315. vpn nephesh
>
> Soul, life, living being, creature
>
> These are used in Genesis 1:20-22 so we should expect to find living
> creatures in the sea that can die or be killed.
>
> >From a cursory glance at the Scriptures, we find that fish (Exodus
> 7:21) and large sea creatures like leviathan can die (Isaiah 27:1),
> hence alive.
>
> Defining life closely
>
> There are two key components to defining "life" by the Bible.
> Obviously, the first is nephesh chayyah, and is mimicked with land
> animals as well as man. However with man it is often translated as
> living soul, as opposed to creature. This is still different from being
> made in the image of God which makes man distinctly different from
> animals.
>
> The next factor is revealed in Genesis 9.
>
> Genesis 9:3-4
>
> "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to
> you, as I gave the green plant. "Only you shall not eat flesh with its
> life, that is, its blood.
>
> This verse indicates that life is in the blood. This is confirmed in
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well:
>
> Leviticus 17:13-14
>
> "Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell
> among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten,
> he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; "for it is the life
> of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the
> children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for
> the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut
> off.'
>
> Deuteronomy 12:23
>
> "Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you
> shall not eat the life with the flesh.
>
> The Hebrew word for red blood is 01818. Md dam dawm. It is a variation
> of the Hebrew word Adam which means "man" or "red". This goes
> back to God breathing life into the man He created from dust in Genesis
> 1 and 2. God breathed life (blood) into Adam and he appeared with the
> reddish color in the face due to the blood - hence the name
> "Adam" for the first man.
>
> 0119. Mda 'adam aw-dam'; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or
> turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
>
> Why is this significant?
>
> We know that a creature that is considered alive contains blood. Fish
> are considered living creatures (nephesh chayyâh) according to the
> Bible. But octopuses and squid also have a type of blood; couldn't
> they be considered "living creatures" as well, like fish?
>
> Fish have red blood which is what makes them a "living creature".
> However, octopuses and squid (and other such sea creatures, or
> invertebrates) have blue blood. This may be significant. What makes the
> blood red or blue?
>
> A human's (or animal's) blood needs to be able to carry oxygen to
> the different parts of the body. This is done by red blood cells in
> humans and animals that contain hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is a red pigment
> contained in the red blood cells which is why our blood is red.
> Hemoglobin is essential for the life of an animal since it has heme
> which contain iron ions. The iron in each heme group binds to and
> transports oxygen.1 It is also interesting to note that heme (or haem)
> comes from the Latin-Greek root for "blood". And in the Greek text
> of the New Testament the Greek word for "blood" is aima haima
> hah'-ee-mah.
>
> Octopuses and most invertebrate creatures like most mollusks, and some
> arthropods, have blood that contains hemocyanins that are used to carry
> oxygen. These hemocyanins are metalloproteins that have a similar
> function to hemoglobin in that they carry oxygen through the blood. But
> instead of containing iron, like the hemoglobin, hemocyanin contains
> two copper atoms that reversibly bind a single oxygen molecule. When
> the copper atoms are not carrying oxygen they are colorless, however
> when the copper is carrying oxygen it becomes blue. Also, the
> hemocyanin is dissolved in the plasma instead of being bound in red
> blood cells, like hemoglobin. So when these copper atoms in the
> hemocyanin carry oxygen it gives the blood of invertebrates its blue
> color.2,3
>
> Other oxygen binding proteins in the blood of invertebrates include
> hemerythrin and pinnaglobin. Hemerythrin contains iron in a non-heme
> protein and appears pink/violet when oxygenated and clear when not.
> Pinnaglobin is a manganese based porphyrin protein that appears brown.
>
> Let's go back to Genesis 1
>
> Let's go back to the creation of sea creatures in Genesis 1 and look
> at it closely. I'm including some of the Hebrew words in the passages
> without translation:
>
> Genesis 1:20-21
>
> Then God said, "Let the waters teem (08318 Urv sherets)( 02416 yx
> chay)( 05315. vpn nephesh), and let birds fly above the earth in the
> open expanse of the heavens." God created the great sea monsters and
> every (02416 yx chay)( 05315. vpn nephesh)( 07430. smr ramas), with
> which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after
> its kind; and God saw that it was good.
>
> 08318 Urv sherets
>
> Teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers, insects, animals, small
> reptiles, quadrupeds
>
> 02416 yx chay
>
> Alive, live living, raw (flesh)
>
> 05315. vpn nephesh
>
> Soul, life, living being, creature
>
> 07430. smr ramas
>
> Creep, move teem, swarm,
>
> Translations of these verses sometimes read: "living creatures that
> move" or "living and moving creatures". The translation that
> makes more sense says "living and moving creatures" as it indicates
> there are living and non living creatures in the sea. Perhaps a more
> appropriate translation (that would also be easier to understand) could
> read:
>
> And God said, "Let the waters teem with swarming things and living
> creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
> heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living and
> moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
> every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
>
> Further support for this comes from Leviticus 11:10.
>
> Leviticus 11:10
>
> "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
> rivers, of all that move <08318> (sherets-swarming things) in the
> waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall
> be] an abomination unto you."
>
> Arthur Jones even concluded in the CRSQ in 1973 that invertebrates were
> not life because they didn't contain flesh (which is what blood
> supplies the life to)4:
>
> "All the animals taken on the Ark are described as basar,
> "flesh." This term (when used of
>
> whole living animals rather than simply the animals body) is never used
> of invertebrate animals."
>
> Conclusion
>
> Many scientists make the distinction that vertebrates have hemoglobin,
> hence red blood, and invertebrates contain other oxygen transporting
> proteins, like hemocyanins, and do not have red blood. As far as
> we've researched at this time, all vertebrates have hemoglobin and
> invertebrates do not, though there may be exceptions we are not aware
> of.
>
> So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have
> red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain
> hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue
> (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is
> further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm)
> is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis
> 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between
> "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in
> the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living"
> creature is one that contains red blood.
>
> References
>
> 1 Mader, Sylvia S. Chapter 13 Cardiovascular System. Inquiry into Life:
> 10th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York 2003: p.250.
>
> 2 James R. Redmond (dept. of Zoology, UCLA); "The Respiratory Function
> of Hemocyanin in Crustacea", Journal of Cellular and Comparative
> Physiology 46 (October 1955):209-242. Reprinted in Bradley T. Sheer,
> ed.; Comparative Physiology: A Book of Readings; (Wm. C. Brown Company
> Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa; 1968), pp. 162-194.
>
> 3 P. J. Mill (Dr., Lecturer in Zoology, The University of Leeds);
> Respiration in the Invertebrates; (Macmillan, St, Martins' Press, N.
> Y.; 1972).
>
> 4 Arthur J. Jones; How many animals on the Ark?; Creation Research
> Society Quarterly; Volume 10; September 1973; Page 103
TimR
of breath rather than blood.
Both are problematical for the right-to-life, crowd, of course, but
certainly a developing embryo acquires blood considerably sooner than
breath.
Marc
Ye Old One wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 06:10:31 -0800, "Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >
> >Nosterill kirjoitti:
> >
> >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >> > [snips]
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:58:29 -0800, Desertphile wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Christian mythology insists there was no such thing as death before
> >> > > First Man and First Woman disobeyed the gods. Ergo "Answers on Genesis"
> >> > > will tell you that sharks were once herbivorous.
> >> >
> >> > Not just herbivorous, but very cautious herbivores, too. Last I checked,
> >> > it was actually rather easy to kill a plant by eating too much of it.
> >>
> >> So they must have been fruitarians, and only eaten the fruit and nuts
> >> without killing the plant.
> >
> >apple...
> >
>
> What apple?
The one with the red skin.
If it had had green skin, that would have been a different story.
(signed) marc
.
Ye Old One
No, still need more information.
--
Bob.
Wakboth
Ye Old One kirjoitti:
In European tradition and religious art, the Fruit of Knowledge of Good
and Evil has been long represented as an apple, although a fig would
probably fit the story better.
-- Wakboth
Windy
Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> > > > Hmm. Can't see those whales diving all that way down just for a fight.
> >
> > No, they dive for dinner :) But I agree that it would make most sense
> > if sperm whales attack giant squid first, and then the squid fight
> > back.
>
> Well, certainly the squid get et, judging by the contents of
> sperm-whale stomachs. You can't help feeling the poor old sperm-whale
> got the shitty end of the evolutionary stick there, when you contrast
> the performance it has to go through for a lunch compared to the easy
> time the baleen whales have.
Maybe squid is tastier than planktonic soup, though.
Ye Old One
I seem to remember reading that apples were not native to the middle
east, at least nothin gthat was edible.
But yes, what I was getting at was that there is no abble mentioned in
the bible.
--
Bob.
Bob D
Yeah. I go for squid. That's more like meat to me. Please, no more of
your pre-fall planktonic/veggy stuff.
jmp...@calweb.com
I'd like everyone to thank the rev. Indeed, he has settled a big
question.
Humans, according to a biologist at pharyngula, are not alive until at
least the fifth week of gestation. That is when red blood cells are
developed.
The crapola about 'life', let alone 'personhood' beginning at
conception is therefore incorrect and should be eliminated.
Excellent work, I'd say!
rev.goetz
rev.goetz wrote:
> I asked the follow question to AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino:
>
> Could a shark have eaten an octopus before the first human sin?
>
> Would any of the TO fans of AiG answer this question before I get
> answers from AiG and ICR and Dr. Dino?
Thank you for contacting the Institute for Creation Research.
Your question is:
Q: Even though life in the waters is not specifically mentioned in
Genesis 1:30, there was probably no carnivores in the waters either for
the reasons found in the following two articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/killer.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=295
Thanks again for your interest in ICR.
rev.goetz
jmp...@calweb.com wrote:
> I'll put this on top.
>
> I'd like everyone to thank the rev. Indeed, he has settled a big
> question.
>
> Humans, according to a biologist at pharyngula, are not alive until at
> least the fifth week of gestation. That is when red blood cells are
> developed.
>
> The crapola about 'life', let alone 'personhood' beginning at
> conception is therefore incorrect and should be eliminated.
>
> Excellent work, I'd say!
But I disagree with the YEC view of life.
John Wilkins
> jmp...@calweb.com wrote:
>> I'll put this on top.
>>
>> I'd like everyone to thank the rev. Indeed, he has settled a big
>> question.
>>
>> Humans, according to a biologist at pharyngula, are not alive until at
>> least the fifth week of gestation. That is when red blood cells are
>> developed.
>>
>> The crapola about 'life', let alone 'personhood' beginning at
>> conception is therefore incorrect and should be eliminated.
>>
>> Excellent work, I'd say!
>
> But I disagree with the YEC view of life.
I think he got that. There was Irony, nay, Litotes, in that comment.
Desertphile
> Just a quick point:
>
> Most AiG emails (and I've exchanged a few) come with a specific
> disclaimer at the bottom that does not grant the recipient the right to
> post to a bulletin board/forum/etc.
>
> Was this fellow asked for permission to post this?
He does not need permission: email belongs to the person who recieves
it. The writer (presumably the person who sends it) still retains
copyright however: if the "AiG" cult objects to the email being posted,
they could always sue for copyright infringement.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You are correct that the person who receives the email has some
rights, but they do NOT own the email and most certainly do NOT own
the copyright. Without the copyright they cannot legally do anything
with the email other than file it away.
--
Bob.
rev.goetz
tomfoolery wrote:
> Just a quick point:
>
> Most AiG emails (and I've exchanged a few) come with a specific
> disclaimer at the bottom that does not grant the recipient the right to
> post to a bulletin board/forum/etc.
Upon close examination of the email reply. I found the following:
"Answers in Genesis is a non-profit, Christ centered,
non-denominational ministry dedicated to upholding the authority of
Scripture from the very first verse! The information contained in this
e-mail message is proprietary, privileged and confidential, and is
intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail
and delete all copies of the message."
I am not sure that this means that the "the use addressee" is limitted
so that the addressee may not post the content. Do any U.S. lawyers
have an opinion of this?
neverbetter
Why do they object to more people being exposed to their inerrant
biblical interpretation which serves to correct all the misinformation
distributed by the atheistic sciences?
rev.goetz
I do not think that they would, especially if I do not twist the
context of their quotes. But tomfoolery suggested the idea. Perhaps the
entire idea is tomfoolery. Or I am misinterpreting the AiG
confidentiality statement.
And we need to clarify the AiG opposes "misinformation" from both
"atheistic science" and "theistic science."