How did Noah deal with worms?

southerngurl writes:

quote:

---

I don't see why the worms wouldn't survive on some glaciers.

---

Ignoring the fact that glaciers are made of ice and worms eat dirt (thus, they wouldn't have any food and would die from starvation), the Bible directly contradicts this possibility:Genesis 8:8: Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;8:9: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.If there were icebergs and other floating mats, the dove would have found a place to rest her foot. But there weren't any, so we can't even consider floating anything as a safe haven for animals not on the ark.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

roxrkool responds to me:

quote:

---

Actually Rrhain, it appears the ice worms live up to six feet deep in the ice and eat red algae! Who knew?

---

You did, so it would seem. That'll teach me to go more links back than I did to catch the complete thread.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

southerngurl responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis 8:8: Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

​

8:9: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

​

If there were icebergs and other floating mats, the dove would have found a place to rest her foot. But there weren't any, so we can't even consider floating anything as a safe haven for animals not on the ark.

---

​

LOL, it would have to be quite the dove to fly over the entire earth. Likely the dove would only have traveled a few miles from the ark.

---

Irrelevant. Didn't you read the passage? What part of "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" don't you understand? The Bible directly states that there wasn't any place for the dove to land on the whole of the earth irrespective of where the ark was or how big or little the ancient Hebrews thought the earth was.The dove couldn't find a place to land because there wasn't a place to land anywhere on the entire planet. Ergo, no icebergs.So where were the worms?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

sotherngurl responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. Didn't you read the passage? What part of "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" don't you understand? The Bible directly states that there wasn't any place for the dove to land on the whole of the earth irrespective of where the ark was or how big or little the ancient Hebrews thought the earth was.

---

​

Ice is water!

---

Ice is not a flood. When the city gets buried under two feet of snow, we do not say that it has been "flooded." If the flood were made of ice, then the ark would have been buried. It certainly wouldn't have floated.Besides, you just contradicted the Bible. There was no place for the dove to land. If there were ice, then there was a place for the dove to land. Since there was no place for the dove to land, there wasn't any ice.Remember, the passage mentions that the reason why there was no place for the dove to land is because "the waters were on the face of the whole earth." In other words, everywhere on earth was just like where the ark was: Liquid water with no place to land. It's a global vision. The Bible is making a point of the fact that no matter where the ark may have been, there wouldn't have been a place for the dove to land.If you're claiming there were icebergs, then you're claiming that there was a place for the dove to land: A direct contradiction of the Bible.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

southerngurl writes:

quote:

---

Gee whiz, if God can make a worm, he can keep it alive!

---

If you're going to invoke magic, then just say so and get it over with. Don't try and invoke naturalistic explanations. Simply say it was a miracle with absolutely no pretensions of physical reality connected to it. Be honest.But that would be a contradiction of the Bible. Everything that wasn't on the ark died:Genesis 7:23: And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.What do you think "only Noah...and they that were with him in the ark" means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

southerngurl writes:

quote:

---

I personally think neither evolution (not referring to microevolution, but rather that all life appeared and made itself over time)

---

I think you have a very distorted vision of what evolution is.Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is compatible with every single method of how life came into being you might care to think of. Chemically through abiogenesis? No problem. Supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence? We're there. Extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding? You got it. Interdimensionally through a rift in space-time? As you wish. So long as that first life did not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.Are you claiming that god cannot create life that evolves?There is no such thing as "microevolution" as distinct from evolution. Biologically, "microevolution" is simply an evolutionary process below the species level. "Macroevolution" is an evolutionary process above the species level. There is no difference in the process. In essence, "macroevolution" is simply a whole lot of "microevolution."After all, if 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? We've seen speciation happen. Both in the lab and in the wild. We've even see new genera and families arise. There is no barrier to how far evolution can change an organism. If it can change a little, why can't it change a lot? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate any more?Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation EventsIshikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

quote:

---

should be taught as fact in public schools, due to their nature, and the fact that neither are provable.

---

If you can see it happen right before your eyes, if you can replicate it, if you can have somebody else do it, why would you deny it?Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain the fact of evolution just as gravitational theory seeks to explain gravity. In fact, evolution is better understood than gravity. We have a mechanism for evolution (mutation and selection). We still have no idea what gravity is. Is it a force carried on a particle? A warpage of space-time? We don't really know.And yet, you don't claim that gravity "isn't provable." Why are you picking on evolution when it is on a more solid footing than gravity?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!