Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Noah deal with worms?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 76 of 113 (166264)
12-08-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by southerngurl
12-07-2004 9:35 PM


Ice shelves do float glaciers attached to ground do not.These ice worms live only in a narrow range from Alaska down the coast of B.C. as far south as the area of Mt. St. Helens The down fall of rain would warm them beyond the range of temperature at which they can survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by southerngurl, posted 12-07-2004 9:35 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 77 of 113 (166280)
12-08-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by berberry
12-08-2004 3:35 AM


Re: D'ye ever thing you migh haf worms?
DO worms creep? I thought they slithered. Is slithering the same thing as creeping? Or for that matter, do worms have "flesh?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by berberry, posted 12-08-2004 3:35 AM berberry has not replied

  
southerngurl
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 113 (166359)
12-08-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rrhain
12-08-2004 1:48 AM


quote:
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.
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.
Also, these particular worms do not feed on dirt, but algea. Earthworms do not exaclty feed on dirt. They feed on organic material, such as leaves, ect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2004 1:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by roxrkool, posted 12-08-2004 9:31 PM southerngurl has not replied
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2004 2:09 AM southerngurl has replied
 Message 88 by berberry, posted 12-09-2004 12:30 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
southerngurl
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 113 (166360)
12-08-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
12-08-2004 1:28 AM


quote:
I mean, we're talking about the "fountains of the deep", which, by virtue of proximity to the moletn mantle, are already superheated.
Actually, in my experience, most springs are ice cold.. and have excellent tasting water!
I simply can't picture the poles melting because of rain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2004 1:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by roxrkool, posted 12-08-2004 9:29 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
southerngurl
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 113 (166361)
12-08-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by hitchy
12-08-2004 8:00 AM


Re: Who could resist fishing...
quote:
Thanks, Deathknight. But the scary thing is that creationist societies all over the US have this painting of the inside of the ark, and guess what, you see the top of a stegasaurus in the foreground!
Now, if NO-ah had to carry some dinosaurs, how much room would be left for anything else? Also, how much freakin' food would just one stegasaurus go through in one day alone?
ROFLOL, anyone who thinks dinosaurs were on the ark does have some problems. Oh yes, 2 stegs, 2 tyrannosaurus, 2 brontos, 2 triceratops, 2 ankylosaurus, oops we're full, sorry to the rest of you!
No, dinos died out long before God made man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by hitchy, posted 12-08-2004 8:00 AM hitchy has not replied

  
southerngurl
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 113 (166362)
12-08-2004 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Deathknight
12-08-2004 9:48 AM


Re: Who could resist fishing...
quote:
Or that why haven't we found any dinosaur bones dating back to his time lol....since all of the prehistoric bones ("PREHISTORIC") date millions of years ago...so and I am pretty sure he didn't just invite a T-rex or Deinonychus to have feed on the other animals to undo the whole point. The other thing is I don't think that every animal in hte world enjoys inbreeding...i.e. screwing their mom, I mean I see dogs do it, but that is about it and I don't think they could have force breed every animal like we can now unless it like a South Park "Red Rocket" insident lol...
I can't think of any animal that would have a problem with that, other than people (sadly, not enough people it would seem).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Deathknight, posted 12-08-2004 9:48 AM Deathknight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2004 10:42 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 82 of 113 (166366)
12-08-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by southerngurl
12-08-2004 8:25 PM


I believe Crash is referring to hot springs - which come up from the earth's interior - which is what appears to be implied by 'fountains of the deep.'
Not the cool mountains springs you'd find on a nice hike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by southerngurl, posted 12-08-2004 8:25 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 83 of 113 (166367)
12-08-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by southerngurl
12-08-2004 8:20 PM


Then I take it you don't think the Bible is inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by southerngurl, posted 12-08-2004 8:20 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 84 of 113 (166370)
12-08-2004 9:47 PM


Everything you wanted to know about worms...
Rather than reply to any specific posts I decided to just write a general one. I really wish I would have seen this one back in August! While my current research is in arthropods, I have a long-standing love in annelids. I thought a basic background addressing certain points would be useful. Yaro's original point still stands uncontested.
The first thing to keep in mind with 'worms' is that the term defines an organizational grade rather than a taxonomic grouping. There are 'worms' across several phyla (Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Nemertea, Annelida, Echiura, Hemichordata, etc.). The worms being discussed are annelid worms in the Class (probably polyphyletic) Clitellata. The other members of the phyum are Pogonophora (like the deep-sea vent tube worms of fame) and Polychaeta (the mostly marine bristle worms).
Sometime far back in this discussion the suggestion was made that earthworms living in lake sediments represented the same 'kind' as earthworms. For this to be true the definition of 'kind' needs to be once again stretched to impossible limits. Because those lake worms (Limnodrilus, I believe?) look like earthworms they must be the same kind. The fact is that Limnodrilus is in a completely different suborder (Tubificina) than is the earthworm (Lumbricina). If they are the same kind and diverged since the flood by microevolution then Humans and Lemurs could have microevolved since the flood (Suborder Anthropoida vs Prosimia), cows and pigs (I don't remember the taxa, Boviina and Suiformes? I am an invert guy!) and so on. The worms differ at a very important level. In another post marine blood worms were mentioned, these are actually a completely different class, Polychaeta. The polychaete called a blood worm is a glycerid, usually genera Glycera, Hemipoda, etc. The family is completely marine.
One of the more energetically demanding aspects of physiology is ion regulation. Most organisms, especially aquatic ones, simply cannot do it efficiently. The majority of marine invertebrates die quickly with even slight changes in salinity. Skin-breathing terrestrial organisms cannot usually tolerate any salt water. Freshwater creatures dehydrate in the presence of salt water. Yes there are a few creatures that are euryhaline but most (I would say 99% as a ballpark) cannot. So unless the flood maintained the exact salinity at the exact points all over the world, we would have lost both fresh and saltwater organisms. I cannot see how the flood could be both salt and fresh in all of the right places, makes no sense.
I do agree with Southerngurl's point (although not the flood) that earthworms wouldn't really have been a problem on the ark. The other thousands of kinds of worms would have been more problemmatic.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 85 of 113 (166371)
12-08-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by southerngurl
12-08-2004 8:30 PM


Re: Who could resist fishing...
I can't think of any animal that would have a problem with that,
Most mammals, at least when not in captive situations, have pretty strong "taboos" on in-the-family breeding. Where do you think we humans came up with rules about incest, after all? Chimps have the same rules...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by southerngurl, posted 12-08-2004 8:30 PM southerngurl has not replied

  
Deathknight
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 113 (166373)
12-08-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CK
12-08-2004 10:54 AM


Re: Who could resist fishing...
Whats bugging you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CK, posted 12-08-2004 10:54 AM CK has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 87 of 113 (166417)
12-09-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by southerngurl
12-08-2004 8:20 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by southerngurl, posted 12-08-2004 8:20 PM southerngurl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by southerngurl, posted 12-09-2004 6:53 PM Rrhain has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 113 (166541)
12-09-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by southerngurl
12-08-2004 8:20 PM


southerngurl writes:
quote:
LOL, it would have to be quite the dove to fly over the entire earth.
Indeed it would. It would also be quite the storm to flood the entire earth. Your point?

Dog is my copilot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by southerngurl, posted 12-08-2004 8:20 PM southerngurl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by hitchy, posted 12-09-2004 3:33 PM berberry has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 89 of 113 (166587)
12-09-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by berberry
12-09-2004 12:30 PM


This reminds me of part of a Monty Python movie
Do you remember the first scene in the Holy Grail when Arthur is stuck in the middle of a conversation with two guards at a castle. He comments that a swallow could carry a coconut by gripping it by the husk. The two guards try to ratioanlize and come up with a way this could be done. One type of swallow is big enough but not migratory. Two small swallows could carry the coconut btwn them with a strip of bark held beneath a feather. Arthur then leaves the guards after realizing that he would not be heard for the real reason he was there--to get a knight for the round table.
I realize that this type of conversation occurs anytime you debate a "flood geology" believer. They start with a misconception and then try to rationalize it. The only problem is--the more they try to rationalize, the more rediculous their position becomes. No amount of information (or disinformation or misconstrued information or purposely neglected information) supports a worldwide flood, period. I can see having fun with this type of conversation and enjoying the pleasure of ripping apart blatantly incorrect thought and bringing down low the grand false ideas of our time, but at what point to we just drop it and get on with better things?
So, for all of you "great flood" defenders, have a nice life. Keep searching for your coconut-carrying swallows. The rest of us will be busy filling-in the gaps of our knowledge of this world. Ark or not, fountains of the deep or not, ice canopies, "polystrate" fossils, "kinds", etc. None of this matters. They are BS, no, worse than BS. They are just plain false. Nhee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by berberry, posted 12-09-2004 12:30 PM berberry has not replied

  
southerngurl
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 113 (166661)
12-09-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rrhain
12-09-2004 2:09 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2004 2:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 12-13-2004 4:31 AM southerngurl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024