Search Members

[wishywashyboy]

uhm, i didn't see in there how plants would survive without CO2. help? i have found a lot of web sites that explain how plants can survive without us, and they all talk about how they are producers and we are consumers, and then they talk about what a plant needs to produce, sunlight, water, and CO2. CO2 they simply say comes from the air. well, of course it does. but where does the CO2 in the air come from? i'm positive it isn't appearing out of oxygen molecules that got bored with being oxygen, and so decided to beome CO2.

[wishywashyboy]

first of all, you are correct, plants do undergo a non-light reaction, this is the dark phase of photosynthesis. just on a side note, you called this reaction respiration, please do be specific, as in scientific terms, respiration is infact all the processes in the break down of food to realease energy. this is where the atp molecules come in. continuing, as i said earlier, there are reactions in plants that do not require light to produce energy, i will now emphasize. it is impossible for almost all plant species to live utilizing these non-light processes, for the energy produced is a mere fraction compared to the amount of energy produced through the light reactions of photosynthesis. this ratio is 1/16, or two atp molecules to all 32 atp molecules produced in the light phase. now, thanks to your ealier post, i have remembered a very important fact. these two reactions, dark and light, are reliant upon each other to continue. without one, the other will stop completely. all of the products produced by the light phase are either given off, or are used by the dark phase of photosynthesis. without the light phase, the dark phase would not have the necessary components to continue. the light phase is also dependant upon its conterpartnering dark phase. without the dark phase of photosynthesis, the by-products(specefically the transport molecules attatched with hydrogen and electrons) would cause a hault to photosynthesis. *another side note you might like knowing, is that the dark phase of photosynthesis actually takes place at all times, even during the daytime. only, unlike the photo phase, it does not require energy from the electro magnetic spectrum, directly that is. it is, however, dependent upon the products of the lightphase* this all shows how intricate God's design was built into nature, and how all that he created is dependent upon one another to continue living.

[wishywashyboy]

it doesn't seem to be so much of a 'no faith' issue, but more of a rebellion against the nature of God. which, in a sense, is even worse.

[wishywashyboy]

yes, i do agree that plants are able to spread in such a way, though it is not possible for all such plants to do so in these ways. the wind can only blow an apple so far from its tree. (concerning how specific God was, unfortunately, there are other possibilities, i will explain further down a ways) there are many other factors, though, that would be necessary to sustain an enviornment with plants, that could not be duplicated without other forms of life to contribute. not that this is out of reach of God, only that to say that God did not create the Earth and all that there is in 7 days, is not only more unecessary, but seems to be a way for people to let evolution into the mind of God. because you cannot mix truth, with anything else, just to get half-truths. the point i would like to make, though, is that for people to say that the Bible's 7 days of creation aren't exactly that, 7 days, but 7000 years, can lead to people trying to mix in the theories of evolution or other godless ideas into other scriptures. and this can lead people away from the truth, which is a very sad thing. Could God have created all that there is in 7000 years? yes, i know that He could. He could do so in 7 seconds if He wished. what i believe is wrong, however, is when people try to change the meanings of scripture to help 'merge' non-scriptural ideas into the Word of God. sorry if this offends anyone, i may not be explaining myself as best i could, so please do not be offended. on a side note, when you said 'self replicating' in your last post, could you please clarify? certain plants are self replicating, as in they can pollenate themselves. but not every seed bearing plant is self replicating. infact, when it comes to the definition of a seed, you need to remember that within ourselves we too have seeds. when a male gamete cell fertilizes a females gamete 'egg' you produce a single zygote with the capabilites (and dna information) to create a single whole organism (providing that all genetic information is intact). so in a sense, you could define a seed as being a single cell (intact with a full set of dna) capable of growing into a full grown organism. finally, when you say God created only the plants that did not require the assistance of bugs or insects to help pollenate them, when would He have created the rest of the plants we have today, which do not 'require' (directly) the assitance of animals or insects to spread them? it is hard to determine, for when it comes to classifying certain organisms as plants and animals, where would a fungi be placed? and smaller organims like bacteria or the rest of the kingdom protista? heh, this is all very interesting, and i really do enjoy your comments.

[wishywashyboy]

that is an example, yet you are forgetting the tinier forms of life. bacteria, and other single celled organims are very capable at producing the quantaties of CO2 necessary. God is not tied to any sort of time (in the sense that we are percieving it as such) but is infinite in all his way. but i must say im not entirely sure what you are trying to say. God is all moments into one, and one moment into all. because of the way we are designed, it is impossible for us to understand and comprehend all that he is. yet we can study what he has created, and understand Him in this way.

[wishywashyboy]

the time span difference? if you are relating to the different 'days' in which God created the earth, it is difficult to believe that He could have created the plants, land animals, animals of the water, and animals of the air in more then a couple days. if it had been thousands of years, as has been proposed, this would upset the natural state of homeostasis necessary to support such animals. suppose, for example, that God had decided to create plants, and for 1000 years, He waited before creating the animals of the air and waters. without animals, how could plants survive? plants require CO2 to generate their food, through the process' which most plants require, in an anaerobic state. it is possible, through the aerobic 'fermentation' for plants to generate their energy, however, it produces an extraordinarily fractional amount of energy compared to the lactic acid cycle. Therefore, plant species could not survive on this 'fermentation' as a source of energy. secondly, supposing that God classified the kingdoms monera, and protista as animals, the decomposition of these plants would be impossible, and a build up of undecomposed materials, as well as the non-circulation of these necessary nutrients into the earth's soil, would leave the living plants without any souce of energy from which to continue their life functions, would kill off the plant species quite rapidly. as another contradiction, certain seed bearing plants, that rely upon the spread of their seeds through other animals, would be unable to reproduce. though it is possible that God had some other way to make this possible, with what we have to work with, making the assumption that plant species today are as they were when God created them originally, this would be impossible.

[wishywashyboy]

well, as the fact remains, we cannot return back in time many thousands of years, so we will never know (in this life at least) exactly what was being referred to as the serpent and the fall of man. however, can we not conclude that since God created all animals and living creatures in the beginning, along with the earth, and, 'apparantly', before the creation of man, it is of course, that dinosaurs were alive during the time that we existed, no?

[wishywashyboy]

concerning the fall out of the Book of Enoch, and why we do not see it in the present form of the Bible, nor is it ready by a majority of the 'christian' population, there are severl factors that could have been the cause of its remoteness. Firstly, early on (first 600 years) in the church, they were under much persecution, the tyrannical Roman leaders. As a result, many christians were killed, their properties seized, and even more notably, their religious texts burned. Therefore, they were forced to choose between what was essential to the continuation of christianity. This would have resulted in many less essential, perhaps more 'redundant', books associated with the Bible to be lost in the terror of persecution. Finally, as the persecutions became less, we would be presented with the present form of the Bible that we have today. However, as i believe may have already been mentioned in some previous postings, the authorities of the church, throughout the middle ages, and up until the more recent reformations, could have been responsible to the loss of certain earlier christian texts. as the church became ever the more corrupt in its ways, it was possible that these earlier beliefs, including the Book of Enoch, could have been stomped out, in an attempt to erradicate it from christianity at the time. now, could this not explain the disappeance or certain texts associated with christianity? it is possible to say that God's truth all lies within the Bible presently, for he would not allow false teachings into it. but perhaps this means that certain texts, such as the Book of Enoch, was/is not necessary/essential to our belief and faith in God. therefore, it is, of course, not that such documents are false and heretical, but that they are merely 'not necessary' for us to have. not that we should blindly accept all things that are labeled as associated with christianity, but it would be folly and pure ignorance for us to turn a blind eye to these things.

[wishywashyboy]

i may be a little off subject at the moment, but is there not an even earlier mention of dinosaurs before that of Job? perhaps within the very first few chapters of Genesis even? remember the fall of man? logically, therefore, it is possible that such a species, of dinosaurs, could have been referred to as the 'serpent'. how else would you be able to describe a dinosaur without legs? exactly what moses meant when using the word serpent we cannot be sure of, can we?

[Author]

Posts