The first ice worm species were discovered in 1887 in Alaska, on the Muir Glacier. These glacier ice worms can be found on glaciers in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia. They have not been found in other glaciated regions of the world. The name "solifugus" is Latin for "sun-avoiding", as ice worms retreat underneath the ice before dawn. Enzymes in ice worms have very low optimal temperatures, and can be denatured at even a few degrees above 0°C. When ice worms are exposed to temperatures as low as 5°C, their membranes melt and the worm itself liquifies.
Let me guess, faith-powered refrigerator, right?
2007-05-29 11:11:06 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I take my hat off to you for putting that much thought, time and energy to be filed under, more useless information.
Congratulations.
P.S: You do have a point there, by the way.
2007-05-29 11:15:32 · answer #1 · answered by ROSE 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋
A question on ice worm: Did they exist when Noah loaded the boat? From reading about them--Science has only just begun to study them completely--Are they the remnant of an evolutionary process. Science does not know. There classification biological is being studied
2007-05-29 11:28:18 · answer #2 · answered by j.wisdom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to the Creationist Museum, ice worms were created a couple of years after the flood.
2007-05-29 11:25:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In this hypothetical ark and world flood, the glaciers at the poles had propably been left untouched by melting.
Or its a mistake. So sue us.
Heres a star.
2007-05-29 11:25:49 · answer #4 · answered by goatman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, you talk alot about ice-worms, and somehow you have made a point that the Bible is stupid or something? WHO SAID THERE WERE NO GLACIERS BEFORE THE FLOOD?
2007-05-30 06:09:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good description, as long as you don't think words mean something entirely different than what I think they mean.
Edit: Fogbound (above) what are "all the accounts of the OT", and what does it mean to pick and choose points from among them when justifying strict interpretation of the story of Noah's Ark?
2007-05-29 11:33:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theists will probably use, get ready for this, the theory of evolution to explain it. Where did we get all this biodiversity when only 2 animals of each were on the arc? Microevolution!
Even though the difference between micro and macro is a matter of time and nothing else.
2007-05-29 11:15:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Oh sir,how you do go on and on. And on. What is your purpose with these endless sneering questions? That you feel the Hebrew scripture is a pack of fairy tales? Fine,I agree. But what is your point? Why bore everyone by stating - and that is the word - the same premise over and over again,tiresomely phrased as a nominal question. You've expressed the same low opinion of the jewish writings endlessly. Also,why are these diatribes never directed to jews? Isn't this their scripture? Or haven't you the courage? However to answer - no.
2007-05-29 11:18:52 · answer #8 · answered by Brynn 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No.
He took the ones that had the breath of life in them. And when we take all the accounts of the OT into account we come to the conclusion that the animals on the ark had nostrils and since worms don't then they wouldn't have to be on the ark....
I give a Biblical answer and get thumbs down.... what's new
2007-05-29 11:14:30 · answer #9 · answered by Fog Bound 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You think no glaciers or icebergs survived the Flood? Why?
They were safely tucked away. They didn't NEED a ride, any more than the FISH did!
2007-05-29 11:18:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
GOD would have keep their part of the ark cool enough for them to survive. It wasn't powered by faith but by the GRACE of God.
2007-05-30 15:07:58 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋