My guess is that any botanist worth their salt is going to look at this and shrug. Truth is it really isn't news. It was known 25 years ago that you could inject a plant with a substance and it would show up in its neighbors in time, even if they were different species.
Botany Lessson:
I willl try to keep this short. If you take a seed and plant it in perfectly sterile soil, say after autoclaving it, and take another of the same seed and plant it in the same unautoclaved soil the plant in the autoclaved soil does worse. As far as the common perception goes that makes no sense, same seed, same nutrients, same conditions - but different growth. So what gives? The difference is this - Mycorrhiza In short, most plant roots aren't that great at pulling minerals out so they have a symbiotic fungus do it for them, then hand back complex sugars and other stuff to the fungus. Some plants are so adapted that by themselves they *cant* live without the symbiote. It it said that up to 95% of ALL plants have this relationship.
So?
Well, if you are the fungus you are indiscriminate with who you work with (last I knew there weren't that many species of mycorrhiza fungi - but it has been a long time since I worked in Dr Charvat's lab) so bonding with all your neighbors wouldnt be a bad idea. So now there is a pathway, we understand what it is, all we have to do is figure out the signal process. That I have no clue about - but if I had to guess - I would say that as a symbiote the fungus knows not to try to take too much from the plant, and if they are siblings it may not be able to discriminate between them there by giving less and taking less, and consequently helping less. From the outside it would look like less growth (because they weren't getting what they need). While the other situation might just be normal growth, though in comparison it would look aggressive. Or if it *is* more growth compared to a lone plant, it might be that the bigger fungi is able to provide more nutrients to both hosts, making them grow more then they would alone.
Anybody remember Combat on a teletype? 2D real time space combat, over a modem. Having to track your movements and the movements of the other ten people you were in combat with pounding in commands the instant you got a chance waiting waiting to see "**BLAM** you have been hit for 52%" and thinking, "Damn, and that was only the first missle" There was even 'clans', I think there was one called DMS, one of them I think was DMS Pnesssut or something like that. And as long as I am gathering wool with old MNers any AVHS grads here?
cough, Cough, COUGH You don't happen to have a lozenge do you? Oh and you know what they say about slammed servers don't you? Wait till off peak time to access it.
...or at least that is what I thought it was called. It was you basic dungeon crawl with The Fantasy Trip (if you are dorky enough to get that reference) like rules. I used to have the source code printed out and the entire rule book. Any body got a copy?
I am humbled. You have stated that which I hide. I too am a Gnostic Christian, and The Demiugre is always there for me. I defend the Old Testament because for the masses it is the Word, and though good chunks of it are very wrong, it is how they define themselves. In my life I have only met one other Gnostic, though I think that we are many. I would love to carry this off board if you are willing: seraphim_72@yahoo.com.
How can that be, when God was clearly afraid of them eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and living forever?
Why would he be afraid of his own creation? Certainly it was in His power to kill them had he the mind to do so. Moreover 'surely' is still a continuum. "Surly you will die if you touch a dog" is still true - even if you touch a dog and die a year later - But it is even more true if *I know* if you touch that dog that it will lead to your death.
Lawpoop, I guess we must agree to disagree on this. You see Jefferson, I see a memorial. Thank you for the rational discussion though, it gets rarer every day. If it helps at all, I am a Theist, and though I can attend a Christian church and smile - those who sit with me, if they knew my true beliefs, would say that I am not a Christian. The Bible was writ by men not God, and there are deeper truths. I have 'friended' you. Despite the gulf of religion and faith that separates us you are a reasonable person. I only wish we could have had this conversation over the phone or face-to-face, I am sure I could have gotten you to see my side;)
Perhaps they had eaten of The Tree of Life all along. And FWIW I don't think the fundis read the Bible. "
And how are Adam and Eve to even know what "will surely die" means? Nothing in the universe had ever died. It was a threat they had no possibility to comprehend." Hmmm...No, I dont think it says that. Things had died, but I agree if they hadn't giving them that injunction would be as pointless as me saying "Open that door and you will surely Mabocastica" So I think they must have known what it meant. Indeed even the serpent knows what death is. To hit your last point, eating the fruit was not evil they needn't that knowledge to know right from wrong.
"In logic terms, I don't think that's correct. The 'if' implies causation; your statement says that the act of walking out of the door is what will cause your death. " It is certainly correct logic, you may not like it, but it is logical. 'If' implies causation, it is not driven by it.
"But if you're going to argue the other way, that there is no causation implied by the 'if', then It also means that you will *not* die if you *don't* walk out that door. We which know not to be true -- avoiding some fatally booby-trapped door will not allow you to live forever." Not at all, I say nothing about your doom, one way or another, I only predict what will happen if you walk out that door.
"I can go along with that, but why can't God be more upfront?" Yes - it would have been nice. But He wasn't.
And again we have an issue of time - "You will die if you do that" can be both an imperative and and injunctive. Neither you or I are Immortal, if we were and someone said "Don't go to the Washington Monument or you will die" I suspect that we wouldn't take them seriously, even after the SS put us in jail.
"So Eve says the snake tricked her, but we don't find any evidence in the Bible that the snake actually tricked her. Instead, everything the serpent says turned out to be true. Why then, would Eve say that the serpent tricked her? Well, probably to avoid punishment from God. "No, God, I didn't eat the fruit -- the snake! He tricked me! Yes, it's all his fault. Punish him!" "
The snake didn't? "Don't worry, you wont die" yet because she eats of the tree she does indeed die. You can argue the snake was ignorant, that might be true. But he was certainly wrong, and God still comes out as a truth teller.
And Eve very much owns up to doing what she did. "...and I did eat"
And even if you can prove the snake didnt lie, it hardly shows that God did. He spoke the truth - "Eat of that tree and you will die."
"So the three things that the serpent says would happen when they ate the fruit, actually came to pass." As does Gods pronouncement, they do indeed die.
I think the part of the problem is in the definition of "surely". "If you walk out the door tomorrow you will surely die." is a true statement, for we all die at some time. To be more specific though, God perhaps knew what his punishment for eating from the tree would be, denial from the other tree, and thus their ultimate deaths. Ever heard someone say as someone eats cheesecake or lits up a smoke "You know, that's going to kill you?" They don't mean that second. We have no idea how long they were in the garden. Adam lived 930 years after they were expelled, if they had been there for millennia before hand perhaps 930 years is a blink of the eye. You say "So, the serpent is honest and straightforward to Eve. He doesn't lie or mislead." Eve certainly thought he did - "3:13. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat."
But prior to them eating of the Tree of Good and Evil - they could eat of the Tree of Life, the only command was they not eat of the Tree of Good and Evil. The fruit they ate, it is argued, made them mortal, and thus eating of it would make them die. This is why the serpent lies to them, to make them mortal. Once they disobey God, they are kicked out of the Garden so that they can no longer eat of the tree of life, it is a punishment for not following one very simple rule. And certainly they did die, God didn't lie to them, they ate of the fruit and they did end up dieing. The serpent however *did* lie, it knew what would happen to them.
Oh and "them" were the angels -
"3:24. And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
But that is exactly what he is saying - Science keeps everything up in the air like juggling balls and then says "See? Thjey are rock solid, trust me I am a Scientist!" This is the perception we are up against. Half the reason the space program was such a big hit was that it was something rock solid that people could see and hear about.
Excellent post, I wish I had mod points. I am always amused by the back pounding by the atheists these flame fests on Slashdot seem to bring up. About every third post is some misquote of the bible or misinterpretation. People who, when you mistype Helium as being the third element will leap to the fray and correct you or call you names for being so stupid yet have no problem stating as fact that the bible says there were two of every animal on the ark. Believe if you want, don't if you don't want, but if you are going to rip on the bible, at least get what it says right. Thank you for the post, you put into words what I have been trying to say with my sig.
Perhaps if either you or the GP had actually *read* the book you are trying to bash it might help your understanding. I will give you a hint: There were two trees.
My question was deeper than that though, and you missed the reference. The bigger question is 'Why'. If there was a big bang, why not many? Why not historical ones?
...and Science does the same. Are Dinosaurs warm or cold blooded this week? How many Mesons are there this week? Is Butter good for you...or bad? Lets face it, the popular media has ruined scientific research. And 'Science' is its worst enemy here.
Yet the unwashed scientific community does the same. At the time of the publishing of Einstein's work it was said that there might be three people that understood it. Yet, how many believed in it because of these three 'Prophets'?
I dont think it is because there are more creationist that the debate is happening though. What is going on IMHO is that people have lost the idea that creation/evolution is not the argument, yet they are pushing that. The debate has become the Theists vs the non Theists, the creation thing is just the battleground. Worse, both sides have taken Theology and put it on the same axis as Creationism. What is the logical disbelief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Hint: it is not Creationism. What is the disbelief of the Christian God? Hint: it is not Darwinism. Both sides are trying to make it an issue.
Oh and your crack about creationists is trollish at best. The articles that get posted to slashdot are *never* pro-Creation. If there is anyone to blame it is your Theist hating brethren.
...or that a mote appeared for no reason in a space that had no reason for it to be there, exploded into may trillions of its mass into stars and planets. Yeah, that makes sense too.
There are those of Us that also believe that the God of the Old Test was simply a worker tasked by the real God to make the World. He is known as the Demiurge The real God who is merciful and kind sent his son to clear up the mistakes of the Demiurge.
Slashdot Mirror
I Was A Botanist.
My guess is that any botanist worth their salt is going to look at this and shrug. Truth is it really isn't news. It was known 25 years ago that you could inject a plant with a substance and it would show up in its neighbors in time, even if they were different species.
Botany Lessson:
I willl try to keep this short. If you take a seed and plant it in perfectly sterile soil, say after autoclaving it, and take another of the same seed and plant it in the same unautoclaved soil the plant in the autoclaved soil does worse. As far as the common perception goes that makes no sense, same seed, same nutrients, same conditions - but different growth. So what gives? The difference is this - Mycorrhiza In short, most plant roots aren't that great at pulling minerals out so they have a symbiotic fungus do it for them, then hand back complex sugars and other stuff to the fungus. Some plants are so adapted that by themselves they *cant* live without the symbiote. It it said that up to 95% of ALL plants have this relationship.
So?
Well, if you are the fungus you are indiscriminate with who you work with (last I knew there weren't that many species of mycorrhiza fungi - but it has been a long time since I worked in Dr Charvat's lab) so bonding with all your neighbors wouldnt be a bad idea. So now there is a pathway, we understand what it is, all we have to do is figure out the signal process. That I have no clue about - but if I had to guess - I would say that as a symbiote the fungus knows not to try to take too much from the plant, and if they are siblings it may not be able to discriminate between them there by giving less and taking less, and consequently helping less. From the outside it would look like less growth (because they weren't getting what they need). While the other situation might just be normal growth, though in comparison it would look aggressive. Or if it *is* more growth compared to a lone plant, it might be that the bigger fungi is able to provide more nutrients to both hosts, making them grow more then they would alone.
Meh - my two cents
Sera
Anybody remember Combat on a teletype? 2D real time space combat, over a modem. Having to track your movements and the movements of the other ten people you were in combat with pounding in commands the instant you got a chance waiting waiting to see "**BLAM** you have been hit for 52%" and thinking, "Damn, and that was only the first missle" There was even 'clans', I think there was one called DMS, one of them I think was DMS Pnesssut or something like that. And as long as I am gathering wool with old MNers any AVHS grads here?
Sera
cough, Cough, COUGH You don't happen to have a lozenge do you? Oh and you know what they say about slammed servers don't you? Wait till off peak time to access it.
...or at least that is what I thought it was called. It was you basic dungeon crawl with The Fantasy Trip (if you are dorky enough to get that reference) like rules. I used to have the source code printed out and the entire rule book. Any body got a copy?
Sera
I am humbled. You have stated that which I hide. I too am a Gnostic Christian, and The Demiugre is always there for me. I defend the Old Testament because for the masses it is the Word, and though good chunks of it are very wrong, it is how they define themselves. In my life I have only met one other Gnostic, though I think that we are many. I would love to carry this off board if you are willing: seraphim_72@yahoo.com.
Why would he be afraid of his own creation? Certainly it was in His power to kill them had he the mind to do so. Moreover 'surely' is still a continuum. "Surly you will die if you touch a dog" is still true - even if you touch a dog and die a year later - But it is even more true if *I know* if you touch that dog that it will lead to your death.
Lawpoop, I guess we must agree to disagree on this. You see Jefferson, I see a memorial. Thank you for the rational discussion though, it gets rarer every day. If it helps at all, I am a Theist, and though I can attend a Christian church and smile - those who sit with me, if they knew my true beliefs, would say that I am not a Christian. The Bible was writ by men not God, and there are deeper truths. I have 'friended' you. Despite the gulf of religion and faith that separates us you are a reasonable person. I only wish we could have had this conversation over the phone or face-to-face, I am sure I could have gotten you to see my side
Seraphim (A.E.L.M.)
Perhaps they had eaten of The Tree of Life all along. And FWIW I don't think the fundis read the Bible. " And how are Adam and Eve to even know what "will surely die" means? Nothing in the universe had ever died. It was a threat they had no possibility to comprehend." Hmmm...No, I dont think it says that. Things had died, but I agree if they hadn't giving them that injunction would be as pointless as me saying "Open that door and you will surely Mabocastica" So I think they must have known what it meant. Indeed even the serpent knows what death is. To hit your last point, eating the fruit was not evil they needn't that knowledge to know right from wrong.
Sera
"In logic terms, I don't think that's correct. The 'if' implies causation; your statement says that the act of walking out of the door is what will cause your death. " It is certainly correct logic, you may not like it, but it is logical. 'If' implies causation, it is not driven by it.
"But if you're going to argue the other way, that there is no causation implied by the 'if', then It also means that you will *not* die if you *don't* walk out that door. We which know not to be true -- avoiding some fatally booby-trapped door will not allow you to live forever." Not at all, I say nothing about your doom, one way or another, I only predict what will happen if you walk out that door.
"I can go along with that, but why can't God be more upfront?" Yes - it would have been nice. But He wasn't.
And again we have an issue of time - "You will die if you do that" can be both an imperative and and injunctive. Neither you or I are Immortal, if we were and someone said "Don't go to the Washington Monument or you will die" I suspect that we wouldn't take them seriously, even after the SS put us in jail. "So Eve says the snake tricked her, but we don't find any evidence in the Bible that the snake actually tricked her. Instead, everything the serpent says turned out to be true. Why then, would Eve say that the serpent tricked her? Well, probably to avoid punishment from God. "No, God, I didn't eat the fruit -- the snake! He tricked me! Yes, it's all his fault. Punish him!" "
The snake didn't? "Don't worry, you wont die" yet because she eats of the tree she does indeed die. You can argue the snake was ignorant, that might be true. But he was certainly wrong, and God still comes out as a truth teller.
And Eve very much owns up to doing what she did. "...and I did eat"
And even if you can prove the snake didnt lie, it hardly shows that God did. He spoke the truth - "Eat of that tree and you will die."
"So the three things that the serpent says would happen when they ate the fruit, actually came to pass." As does Gods pronouncement, they do indeed die.
Seraphim
um....by leveraging our synergy?
Giving a whole new meaning to "Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole"
I think the part of the problem is in the definition of "surely". "If you walk out the door tomorrow you will surely die." is a true statement, for we all die at some time. To be more specific though, God perhaps knew what his punishment for eating from the tree would be, denial from the other tree, and thus their ultimate deaths. Ever heard someone say as someone eats cheesecake or lits up a smoke "You know, that's going to kill you?" They don't mean that second. We have no idea how long they were in the garden. Adam lived 930 years after they were expelled, if they had been there for millennia before hand perhaps 930 years is a blink of the eye. You say "So, the serpent is honest and straightforward to Eve. He doesn't lie or mislead." Eve certainly thought he did - "3:13. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat."
But prior to them eating of the Tree of Good and Evil - they could eat of the Tree of Life, the only command was they not eat of the Tree of Good and Evil. The fruit they ate, it is argued, made them mortal, and thus eating of it would make them die. This is why the serpent lies to them, to make them mortal. Once they disobey God, they are kicked out of the Garden so that they can no longer eat of the tree of life, it is a punishment for not following one very simple rule. And certainly they did die, God didn't lie to them, they ate of the fruit and they did end up dieing. The serpent however *did* lie, it knew what would happen to them.
Oh and "them" were the angels -
"3:24. And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
I LOL'd
But that is exactly what he is saying - Science keeps everything up in the air like juggling balls and then says "See? Thjey are rock solid, trust me I am a Scientist!" This is the perception we are up against. Half the reason the space program was such a big hit was that it was something rock solid that people could see and hear about.
Excellent post, I wish I had mod points. I am always amused by the back pounding by the atheists these flame fests on Slashdot seem to bring up. About every third post is some misquote of the bible or misinterpretation. People who, when you mistype Helium as being the third element will leap to the fray and correct you or call you names for being so stupid yet have no problem stating as fact that the bible says there were two of every animal on the ark. Believe if you want, don't if you don't want, but if you are going to rip on the bible, at least get what it says right. Thank you for the post, you put into words what I have been trying to say with my sig.
Seraphim
Perhaps if either you or the GP had actually *read* the book you are trying to bash it might help your understanding. I will give you a hint: There were two trees.
Seraphim
Tom, if you happen to read Slashdot, just how many of Novell's 30 pieces of silver do you get?
Sera
My question was deeper than that though, and you missed the reference. The bigger question is 'Why'. If there was a big bang, why not many? Why not historical ones?
That is Faith, not Science.
...and Science does the same. Are Dinosaurs warm or cold blooded this week? How many Mesons are there this week? Is Butter good for you...or bad? Lets face it, the popular media has ruined scientific research. And 'Science' is its worst enemy here.
Sera
I dont think it is because there are more creationist that the debate is happening though. What is going on IMHO is that people have lost the idea that creation/evolution is not the argument, yet they are pushing that. The debate has become the Theists vs the non Theists, the creation thing is just the battleground. Worse, both sides have taken Theology and put it on the same axis as Creationism. What is the logical disbelief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Hint: it is not Creationism. What is the disbelief of the Christian God? Hint: it is not Darwinism. Both sides are trying to make it an issue.
Oh and your crack about creationists is trollish at best. The articles that get posted to slashdot are *never* pro-Creation. If there is anyone to blame it is your Theist hating brethren.
Sera
...or that a mote appeared for no reason in a space that had no reason for it to be there, exploded into may trillions of its mass into stars and planets. Yeah, that makes sense too.
Seraphim
Sera