Posted on 06/02/2009 5:35:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I am not sure why you think I worry about this. You may be confusing me with someone else.
I don’t care.
I have had lots of pets in my life which ate strange items, that were not typical or logical. I am sure animals in the wild do the same thing.
As an example, I had a cat who loved string beans. He loved them to the point he would jump on the table during dinner trying to get them or even climb in the fridge if he smelled them. That was the weirdest cat in the world.
So don’t worry, I am not.
Both of the sources you listed make it clear that the diet of these “birds of prey” is almost completely vegetarian.
Not stagnation but perfection. Eden and Man were perfect until the Fall.
As for the "silly" part I admitted in post 45 it was a poor example:
I admit that was a poor example. What I'm trying to convey is that if there was stasis before the Fall then most of the rules we see now didn't apply. If there was no death then there was obviously no need to regulate population levels since they would be the same at all times.
I suppose I could have said that God said it was so that's why. But that wouldn't allow much room for discussion.
Think about it, without death, no reproduction is possible, because no regulation would be possible, and that would not apply to plants if people were eating them, new plants would have to grow. Unless people wouldn't have to eat, with no death why bother eating? What's the point, you can't die, so why do you have to eat?
But they did eat. They were allowed to eat everything in the garden except for what God prohibited. They would not necessarily have killed in order to eat. Just like picking an apple doesn't kill the apple tree.
LMAO!!!
"Eat mostly nuts but also eats carrion, insects, lizards, crabs, and fish" is not the same thing as "almost completely vegetarian," no matter how much you wish it to be so.
I did read the atricle this morning. It was interesting.
And if lions can be vegetarians maybe Oblahblah can become an American!
Strange article.
Is it really news to some people that there are omnivorous species? Or is it odd to some people that a species can have a different diet that other closely related species?
The palm-nut vulture is so different from other vultures that it’s even questionable as to whether it’s even a vulture. It’s a bit controversial as to how to classify them (for instance, it has a full plumage on the head. Vultures are typically bald or are lightly feathered on their head, especially ones that stick their head into the carcass of large animals. That’s a clue that this isn’t a typical vulture and has a different diet). And it doesn’t rarely eat meat - it often eats fish, small mammals, lizards, insects, etc, anything it can get its hands (or rather beak) on, as long as such food is available.
As for “Little Tyke”, it’s difficult to find reliable info on her, but according to most sources in order to get the nutrients she needed she lived mostly on milk and eggs (is that a vegetarian diet? Is that a diet an animal would have “pre-Fall”?) She may have had a food allergen that prevented her from having a usual diet. And judging from her lifespan, may not have been all that healthy.
Lions are *designed* from the tip of their nose to the end of their tail to be hunters - so it’s odd to think they’d be designed this way (by a Creator) unless this is how they are “supposed” to be.
Also, I’m not sure why from the Creationist perspective to think that these creatures “returned” to this diet? Is there a reason to think they were recently different?
First Source:
"Soars well; takes off with quick wingbeats. Hunts live prey by stooping from flight; may catch fish from near water surface, or may completely submerge; walks about on shorelines to catch invertebrates and to scavenge scraps and carrion."
Second Source. And you would presume that ravens are vegetarians?
Unlike other vultures, the palm nut vulture often catches live prey---both on land and from the water. On several occasions I have seen them grabbing fish with their feet from the lake surface and then carrying the fish to a tree or to the lake shore to feed on it. Palm nut vultures also practice ‘kleptoparasitism’, that is, the behavior of stealing food from other species. They are known to steal food from white-napped ravens. Twice I have witnessed a palm nut vulture that was carrying food being chased by a white-napped raven. Presumably the vulture had taken the food from the raven.
Huh?
Just like picking an apple doesn't kill the apple tree.
Doesn't a fertilized organism count as life in your world of view?
Good question. on first look that's a conundrum. I don't know that I have a one sentence answer.
On one hand I agree; especially when it comes to human life. Conception means that there is a complete being. No equivocation there And a fruit is certainly a complete plant being. Or many beings in the case of an apple, orange, or other multi seed fruit.
But to elevate a plant seed to the same level as a nascent human baby? No, there is no equivalency there.
I have to think that God did and we should make a distinction between plants and animals.
And does a woman 'kill' a fertilized egg if she menstrates before implantation? Or if she miscarries? I don't think so and you'll probably agree. We may not agree on whether or not removing a fertilized egg by artifice is killing. I firmly believe it is.
So short answer after all that; eating the fruit of a plant kills nothing in the Biblical or practical sense of the word or Word.
Anyway, thanks for that post. It made me think for a while and that's one of the reasons I come here.
I didn't. I just pointed out the flow in the example which, as stated, did not consider the apple (a fertilized organism) as life.
My answer to you was that there is no meaningful equivalency there regardless of the specific exception you pointed out. I’ll concede the flaw in my already admittedly flawed example.
Would you address the general point I made that eating plants (even fruit) does not constitute a killing in the context of what we’re discussing here?
I was addressing the following post:
"Just like picking an apple doesn't kill the apple tree. "
It just struck me that you would dismiss the death of a fertilized organism as not killing in the same manner as 'killing' a tree. Is the apple not a living organism capable of developing into a tree?
I already admitted that was a flawed example, complimented you for asking a thoughtful question and explained the point I was trying to make. I was hoping you would address my overall assertion that eating plants isn’t killing in the biblical sense or relevant in the context of what we’re discussing here.
I’m not trying to defeat you here . I like people that make me think and I want to know the reasoning behind your assertion.
You mean they evolved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.