How did Noah deal with worms?

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

Hi Southerngurl,
In the interest of keeping this topic alive I would refrain from using arguments of the goddidit quality (from the school of "god said it, I believe it, that settles it"). I am in no way berating you, just informing you for your sake and the good of all.The arguments on this forum need to be kept in the realm of evidence and logic, no matter which side you take. Yes God could have miraculously spared the worms since he also had the power to create them in the first place, but calling miracles into the picture doesn't get us anywhere.For example, a Bible literalist might argue (and I am in no way implying you would ever say this, I am exaggerating to make a point) that 4000 years ago God destroyed the Earth with a global flood, but the reason we have no evidence or contrary evidence is because a God powerful enough to destroy the world can leave any evidence he so desires. That may or not be true, but such arguments aren't productive in this forum.So far your points have been reasonable and well-taken (although you do need to read Rhain's dove on ice post and respond, I am eager to hear!). Keep up the good work!

Most, (but not all) the "unbelievers" here don't have much direct argument with religious beliefs per se.What we do have a big disagreement with are those who suggest that there is some thing called creation "science" that should be taught in schools.GodDidIt doesn't cut it in a science classroom. If that is all the argument that one can present then there is nothing that we have to bother arguing about. You can believe what you want, I won't bother you about it. You keep it in church, I stay out of church and you keep it out of the classroom. No problemo.

We're getting off topic, but I personally think neither evolution (not referring to microevolution, but rather that all life appeared and made itself over time) or creationism should be taught as fact in public schools, due to their nature, and the fact that neither are provable.This message has been edited by southerngurl, 12-09-2004 08:55 PMThis message has been edited by southerngurl, 12-09-2004 09:11 PM

quote:

---

(although you do need to read Rhain's dove on ice post and respond, I am eager to hear!).

---

Which one? I though I did?

She did... ice is water.

Creation DOES need to be taught with evolutionWould do to carry that on if needed. Thanks though, you are right it is off topic here.

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!

A few things that I find despicable that have probably been said before, but are worth saying once more:
1. The fact that trained and schooled evolutionary biologists and Geologists would muck about on a creation science website is beyond me. Far more intellectually stimulating and less ignorant discussion can be found at so many other forums, why bother with such a mass of thick-headed ignoramuses?
2. Forget about creationists, the reason they believe all this nonsense is because they have been brainwashes and are fairly incapable of perceiving logical scientific argumentation that weighs every side of the issue. If creationism were indeed a valid scientific theory, than it would receive far more attention than it does at this time.
3. Creationism is not practiced by many in the scientific community, because, quite frankly, it’s a joke; there is NO clear evidence (none any clearer than evidence presented by geologists and paleobiologists on the origins and evolution of species) for creationism. A science that is based on faith is not a science, it’s a religion.
4. I am here because I like to laugh. I’ve come to the logical conclusion that evolution, etc. are far more correct standpoints from which to view life on earth than any religion had to offer because I weighed both sides (although, in retrospect, I don’t know why I bothered). You Jesus freaks crack me up, you muddle around searching for inconsistencies in everyone else’s theories and have failed to notice the one fatal flaw in your own; it’s physically impossible.
5. I’ve got 2 BS and am working on a PhD in this nonsense; I feel I have a pretty strong grasp of scientific procedures.
6. If god exists, he is one sick bastard, I’d love to meet himhaha.
7. Since there is absolutely no evidence for creation science, you morons have been deduced to rash attempts at disproving evolutionary theory. This is an exercise in futility, and I have yet to hear or read one marginally convincing argument that I could not refute with 10 lines of peer-reviewed evidence.Alright, I guess that’s all of my rant for the time being. You probably won’t see too much of me around, I’m a member of a national coalition of geology students who have taken it upon ourselves to remove creationist propaganda from schools, etc. We go to message boards such as these, applaud the intelligent to have come to the realization that god is joke and they are going to die and rot anyway, and scoff and the poor dumb bastards who are still grasping to their threads of Noah’s great flood or whatever other horseshit they have got in their heads. Thanks for your time!

Go troll somewhere else.

This way way way off topic. Please try to stick with the topic at hand.You can go to this page to (1) look at my puppies and (2) use the links to your advantage. (1)It's fun to do so.

​

(2)Unfortunately, the average person doesn't have the training necessary to distinquish between good science and bad science. The problem is that creationists have distorted real science and made their position seem plausible to the unwashed masses. Politicians are not scientists and they need the unwashed masses' support to get into office. If we don't do something, we could very well see the persecution of real scientists in the near future and the burnings of planetariums and laboratories.

​

(3)Unfortunately, the average person out there doesn't know this.

​

(4)Would you like me to throw you a bone?

​

(5)You are a few years ahead of me there.

​

(6)All you have to do is fly to Illinois and meet me.

​

(7)Duh...

​

This message has been edited by Lam, 12-13-2004 04:40 PM

That is precisely my intent! Hopefully, with enough colleges and universities together, we will be able to hijack many of these boards. Block me if you must, but once a hack, always a hack! The more intelligent will prevail!

you do not seem to have differentiated ethically at least,Agassiz's concern for the THOUGHT that links fossils and rocks and fanaticism whether religious or in today's pedagogy that refuses even historically to think back to a non-ancient view from a possiblity however small. Charles and I are likely diametrically opposed but you must first determine if it was fanaticsm only and I KNOW that there is a theoretical possiblity that all creationism is not in the future only this mockery. Please not the phrase , "quite as much"Louis had replyed to Sedwick on "odd" fish with, "I dread quite as much the exaggeration of religious fanaticism, borrowing framents from science, imperfectly or not at all understood, and then making use of them to prescribe to scientific ment what they are allowed see or to find in Nature. Between these two extremes it is difficult to follow a safe road. The reason is, perhaps, that the domain of facts has not yet received a sufficiently general recognition, while traditional beliefs still have too much influence upon the study of the sciences."I was prescribed drugs involuntarily rather than determine what is fanatic and what was not! You may reject or deny a "tansfinite" domain but I do not. The history of creationism is punctuated by the 60s "revival" and faliure to realize this (Scott for one did not despite being "against" creationist influence) fails to read this old view contemporaneously and concurrently.