• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sharks that eat.........plants?

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
This idea struck me while I was debating about animal life in the Garden of Eden. The fundies where discussing how God must have created bacteria in Eden, but for some reason no one ever got sick from bacteria carrying deseases. I brought up the question of how tape worms and other parasites survived in Eden, especially with their rather disgusting and harmful lifecycles. Anywho, I was eventually told that all animals in Eden ate plants or otherwise survived in a non-carnivorous way.
So, more or less what I'm asking is:
1)Upon leaving Eden, did animals immediately change their diet or was it a slow change?
2)How was it decided which animals would eat what?
3)Did animals physically look different? For ex., did lions have blunt teeth for chewing grass? What the heck would a shark look like?
4)Am I reading too far into this?:yes:
5)Still, I think this is a largely overlooked issue that needs to be disscussed.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
I'm not a literalist, but I'll give you my opinion.

Real Sorceror said:
So, more or less what I'm asking is:
1)Upon leaving Eden, did animals immediately change their diet or was it a slow change?
2)How was it decided which animals would eat what?
3)Did animals physically look different? For ex., did lions have blunt teeth for chewing grass? What the heck would a shark look like?
4)Am I reading too far into this?:yes:
5)Still, I think this is a largely overlooked issue that needs to be disscussed.

1) The story doesn't tell us.
2) The story doesn't tell us.
3) The story doesn't tell us.
4) :yes:
5) Discuss if you want, but I find when people dig too deep they miss the "truth" that the story is attempting to impart. The story isn't about evolution and the method of creation is not as important as "truth" that God created the world for us. When one listens to a Native American "myth" do they come up with all the reasons why it cannot be true or do they listen for the "truth" that the myth imparts?
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
nutshell said:
5) Discuss if you want, but I find when people dig too deep they miss the "truth" that the story is attempting to impart. The story isn't about evolution and the method of creation is not as important as "truth" that God created the world for us. When one listens to a Native American "myth" do they come up with all the reasons why it cannot be true or do they listen for the "truth" that the myth imparts?
Yes, I understand that the story is just a parabal meant to teach us something. Yet all too often I meet people that want to take it literally and who really believe it is historically accurate.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Real Sorceror said:
This idea struck me while I was debating about animal life in the Garden of Eden. The fundies where discussing how God must have created bacteria in Eden, but for some reason no one ever got sick from bacteria carrying deseases. I brought up the question of how tape worms and other parasites survived in Eden, especially with their rather disgusting and harmful lifecycles. Anywho, I was eventually told that all animals in Eden ate plants or otherwise survived in a non-carnivorous way.
So, more or less what I'm asking is:
1)Upon leaving Eden, did animals immediately change their diet or was it a slow change?
2)How was it decided which animals would eat what?
3)Did animals physically look different? For ex., did lions have blunt teeth for chewing grass? What the heck would a shark look like?
4)Am I reading too far into this?:yes:
5)Still, I think this is a largely overlooked issue that needs to be disscussed.

1) the animals already existed. Humans evolved along with them.
2) I don't believe this was decided for the animals unless it's proven to be an instinctual thing. Likely it was a trial and error thing. Animals still learn what they can/should eat and what isn't worth the trouble.
3) Lions blunt teeth? I think carnivores evolved after the herbivores.
4) Nothing can go against fact. Some of us accept evolution as fact because the proof supports it and it's a very smart way to run a planet. It takes care of itself.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Stop it, Sorceror! Thought-provoking questions like these only make the fundamentalists dig in their heels and embrace irrational ideas all the more fervently!
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Real Sorceror said:
Anywho, I was eventually told that all animals in Eden ate plants or otherwise survived in a non-carnivorous way.
I hate animal bias. Some people seem to think its ok to eat plants, but not ok to eat animals, why?

Plants are living beings, just as much as animals. If you eat a plant you will injure or kill it - how is this better than injuring or killing an animal?
I'll tell you how, its because humans can relate to animals but not to plants - human stupidity never ceases to surprise me.

EDIT: re-reading that rant, i think it may seem like its aimed at the thread starter, it's not.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Halcyon said:
I hate animal bias. Some people seem to think its ok to eat plants, but not ok to eat animals, why?

Plants are living beings, just as much as animals. If you eat a plant you will injure or kill it - how is this better than injuring or killing an animal?
I'll tell you how, its because humans can relate to animals but not to plants - human stupidity never ceases to surprise me.

EDIT: re-reading that rant, i think it may seem like its aimed at the thread starter, it's not.

Good point. It depends of course on how you eat the plant. Eating the fruit does not kill the plant and is in fact beneficial to it. But generally it is just a fact of our existence that in order to be alive, you have to kill something.
 

bigvindaloo

Active Member
Real Sorceror said:
This idea struck me while I was debating about animal life in the Garden of Eden. The fundies where discussing how God must have created bacteria in Eden, but for some reason no one ever got sick from bacteria carrying deseases. I brought up the question of how tape worms and other parasites survived in Eden, especially with their rather disgusting and harmful lifecycles. Anywho, I was eventually told that all animals in Eden ate plants or otherwise survived in a non-carnivorous way.
So, more or less what I'm asking is:
1)Upon leaving Eden, did animals immediately change their diet or was it a slow change?
2)How was it decided which animals would eat what?
3)Did animals physically look different? For ex., did lions have blunt teeth for chewing grass? What the heck would a shark look like?
4)Am I reading too far into this?:yes:
5)Still, I think this is a largely overlooked issue that needs to be disscussed.
Sharks are remarkable. Apparently they never grow old in the biological timeclock sense and die "from the hazards of living in the wild" (sourced from doco). Anyway if this is the case, who says they won't evolve to eat plants when everything else has kicked the bucket? When they get too big they seem to adopt vacuum feeding techniques.
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
Seyorni said:
Stop it, Sorceror! Thought-provoking questions like these only make the fundamentalists dig in their heels and embrace irrational ideas all the more fervently!
:D I know, I couldn't help myself!
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Seyorni said:
Stop it, Sorceror! Thought-provoking questions like these only make the fundamentalists dig in their heels and embrace irrational ideas all the more fervently!

That's a close-mided and stereotyping comment. :no:
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Real Sorceror said:
:D I know, I couldn't help myself!

Don't celebrate your Almight intellect. Your painting Fundamentalists with a broad stoke that should not include all of them.
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
Super Universe said:
1) the animals already existed. Humans evolved along with them.
2) I don't believe this was decided for the animals unless it's proven to be an instinctual thing. Likely it was a trial and error thing. Animals still learn what they can/should eat and what isn't worth the trouble.
3) Lions blunt teeth? I think carnivores evolved after the herbivores.
4) Nothing can go against fact. Some of us accept evolution as fact because the proof supports it and it's a very smart way to run a planet. It takes care of itself.
Yes, I'm well aware of these things, but I must question # 3. I'm pretty sure carnivorous bacteria appeared before herbivorious bacteria.:shrug:

Oh, and in case anyone was confused by the OP, I'm a thiestic evolutionist. I'm not sure how clear that was. Just don't mistake me for a Bible thumper.;)
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
nutshell said:
Don't celebrate your Almight intellect. Your painting Fundamentalists with a broad stoke that should not include all of them.
Are you saying that globalizing and sweeping generalizations are bad?;)
I'm well aware of the vast differences in individual Christian doctrine. My only beef is with the literalist fundies.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Halcyon said:
I hate animal bias. Some people seem to think its ok to eat plants, but not ok to eat animals, why?

Plants are living beings, just as much as animals. If you eat a plant you will injure or kill it - how is this better than injuring or killing an animal?
I'll tell you how, its because humans can relate to animals but not to plants - human stupidity never ceases to surprise me.

EDIT: re-reading that rant, i think it may seem like its aimed at the thread starter, it's not.

In general, Halcyon, it's not a reluctance to take life but a reluctance to cause suffering.
Suffering and the awareness that underlies it are useful features in creatures exploiting certain ecological niches, but in other lifestyles this biologically expensive feature is useless. Evolution selects out useless feature that sap resources, hence, plants lack the nervous system to sustain awareness of pain or suffering.
We veggies are comfortable exploiting such insensate creatures. If we could photosynthesize, we would.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Seyorni said:
In general, Halcyon, it's not a reluctance to take life but a reluctance to cause suffering.
Suffering and the awareness that underlies it are useful features in creatures exploiting certain ecological niches, but in other lifestyles this biologically expensive feature is useless. Evolution selects out useless feature that sap resources, hence, plants lack the nervous system to sustain awareness of pain or suffering.
We veggies are comfortable exploiting such insensate creatures. If we could photosynthesize, we would.

What are you talking about? I photosynthesize with my HP printer all the time.

:run:
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Seyorni said:
In general, Halcyon, it's not a reluctance to take life but a reluctance to cause suffering.
Suffering and the awareness that underlies it are useful features in creatures exploiting certain ecological niches, but in other lifestyles this biologically expensive feature is useless. Evolution selects out useless feature that sap resources, hence, plants lack the nervous system to sustain awareness of pain or suffering.
We veggies are comfortable exploiting such insensate creatures. If we could photosynthesize, we would.
Actually there is evidence that plants do register pain. They have anervous system, just not an animal-like nervous system.
When you rip off a leaf or pull up a carrot, chemicals and hormones are released that spread throughout the organism. I've also read research (that i can't sem to find online, so assume it was in a journal) that there is also an electrical response induced in injured plants.

I've even seen some research looking at electrical communications between plant roots via ground water. Plant neurobiology is still a young science though.

The simple fact is that because people cannot observe a reaction to pain that they recognise in plants, as they would in other animals, they assume that plants are unaware, they are not. The evidence is growing that plants are just as aware of their surroundings and of their own bodies as animals.

Many people justify killing animals to themselves because the animals are "inferior to us, they aren't human". The vast majority of humans use the same logic with plants "plants don't feel pain, they aren't animal, they are inferior", they just don't realise it.

Plants, and fungi, are as evolved as any animal organism on this planet. Their bodies are different, they live in a totally different way and they interact with each other and their environment in such an alien manner that, as animals, humans simply don't notice.
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
Good post Halcyon!;)

Still, I have to recognize that, biologically, I am an omnivore, and if I want to live I have to kill something and eat it.

........what where we talking about?
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Real Sorceror said:
Good post Halcyon!;)
Thanks :eek: .

Real Sorceror said:
Still, I have to recognize that, biologically, I am an omnivore, and if I want to live I have to kill something and eat it.
Sure, i eat animals and plants (i don't like fungi). And i'm not trying to have a go at veggies or anything, i just really dislike animal bias - to me, it's like racism.
 

Real Sorceror

Pirate Hunter
Halcyon said:
Sure, i eat animals and plants (i don't like fungi).
I'm of the opinion that mushrooms are not meant to be eaten.:)
And i'm not trying to have a go at veggies or anything, i just really dislike animal bias - to me, it's like racism.
I see. I have a healthy respect for trees and certian other plants. If you really study them, they are just as interesting as animals, often moreso. I find it very interesting when plants evolve to take advantage of an animal, such as flowers specifically shaped to rub pollen on a bat, or a seed pod shaped to entangle a deer's hoof to travel around. The venus fly-trap and it's kin are especially strange.
Remember everyone, without plants there would be no exchange of oxygen and carbon-dioxide. And we would all die.:D
 
Top