Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 55909

Since atheists believe in evolution, why is the Jonah in the whale not plausible?

how are atheists sure there were no fish large enough for a man to be inside a whale without harm coming to him...is it possible for a fish like that to exist then become extinct in the grand scheme of evolution...evolution has no purpose or mind...why couldn't a large fish exist that would be able to carry a man in his stomach...or in another sack within the belly of a whale without harm...would atheists say its not evolutionarily possible and then turn around and say evolution has no purpose...besides don't atheists just say all miracles are "coincidence"...is it not coincidently possible or plausible for a different type of large fish live in the time of Noah that swallowed him and spit in on shore of his destination...if you want to say there is no evidence of a fish like that...i thought all fossils are proof of evolution...thats why we don't have transitional fossils for man...just pieces of bones while having full skeletons for dinosaurs...or does the atheists mind stop being open when it comes to religion and possibilities...showing the true closed mindedness of atheists...

fmko ( ??????????????), Yahoo! Answers 68 Comments [1/9/2009 7:19:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Mephistopheles

If Noah was in another sack of the body than the stomach the lack of air would've killed him in less than 3 days.
Edit: first comment, yay!

1/9/2009 7:26:02 AM



Why is it not possible? Stomach acids, suffocation... need I go on?

Sure, it's theoretically possible for a fish that could've ate Jonah and allowed him to live inside to have existed, but that doesn't mean it's very fucking likely. For one it's been only a couple thousand years since the story of Jonah was written. Things don't evolve that fast, and we have no indication that there was ever any species that had any of the genetic mutations necessary to be able to digest things without very quickly killing them.

Also we have a huge amount of transitional fossils for man, dinosaur, and virtually every other animal. Do some research, douchebag.

1/9/2009 7:26:31 AM

atrasicarius


1/9/2009 7:28:30 AM

aaa

You know what? We call this "lying".

1/9/2009 7:38:12 AM

Brain_In_A_Jar

is it not coincidently possible or plausible for a different type of large fish live in the time of Noah that swallowed him and spit in on shore of his destination

Not even remotely. Six thousand years is far too short for any noticable variation in species, and no such creature is known to exist.

1/9/2009 7:41:56 AM

werewolf

First of all, whales aren't fish. They're mammals like Jonah.

Second...oh, why bother with this? Life is too short.

1/9/2009 7:59:55 AM



You know that acid that breaks down the food in your stomach so you can digest it? Well after Jonah died of most likely drowning his body would've been eaten away by the stomach acid of the fish.

1/9/2009 8:47:22 AM

pete

No. None of the things "fmko" said are possible. In fact, while not terribly offensive, this may be the most concentrated fail I've ever seen in a single fundy quote. If one could bottle this kind of fail one could lower the grade of every student on the planet.

1/9/2009 9:02:39 AM

Vampirehummingbird

'..why is the Jonah in the whale not plausible?'

Why is the Jonah in the whale plausible?

1/9/2009 9:28:43 AM

Slater

"there were no fish large enough for a man to be inside a whale"

WHAT?

So... If I buy a big car, I can fit more baggage on my bicycle?

1/9/2009 9:28:53 AM

a mind far far away

... ... ... See, I make sense now.

1/9/2009 9:36:46 AM

Percy Q. Shun

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

1/9/2009 9:39:06 AM

Ostravan

Noah was an invention of Gilgamesh, much as in the same fashion as the Arthur C. Clarke novels.
Then again, fundies regard Babylonian fairy tales as being the truth.

1/9/2009 10:02:25 AM

toothache

Oh, whales are mammals. As such they have these things called digestive systems that tend to break down anything they swallow.

1/9/2009 10:12:44 AM

Sylvana

What bugs me is that this is some kind of argument against evolution. It is a remote, and by remote I mean almost impossible, chance that such a creature could have existed. However, one does not need evolution do completely discredit the story simple biology does all for us.


1/9/2009 10:45:09 AM

Xotan

Whales don't have all that big a swallow! And even if they did, there are gastric juices and lack of oxygen to explain. Oh the stupid hurts!

1/9/2009 10:59:02 AM

Freboy

Well, it's technically possible. But while we're moving in the realm of possibilities, this one is on the same level as cyklops, bird-people and reverse gravity.

1/9/2009 11:01:05 AM

Illuminatalie

Well, we did discover a whale last year that had evolved an apartment suite with modern plumbing and central air exchange in its stomach, so I guess it's POSSIBLE.

1/9/2009 11:31:07 AM

Ash

For the record, the Hebrew bible says "large fish", not whale. That is a late interpretation.

And it's a massive fail in biology.

1/9/2009 11:38:45 AM

anevilmeme

Evidence, have you heard of it?

1/9/2009 12:06:49 PM

drumbo

"Since atheists believe in evolution, why is the Jonah in the whale not plausible?"

palm > face

1/9/2009 12:17:10 PM

Mister Spak

Since fundies believe in the bible, why are the adventures of Harry Potter not plausible?

1/9/2009 12:26:14 PM



Because whales didn't evolve with men in their stomachs?

Got any more bright questions?

1/9/2009 12:27:01 PM

Nowonmai

Since atheists believe in evolution, why is the Jonah in the whale not plausible?

Because he would have been digested by stomach acids, as whales are not equipped for tenants.

1/9/2009 12:29:30 PM

BufferickVonHellbags

wha? i don't even.....aw, fuck it, i'm too tired.

1/9/2009 1:07:51 PM
1 2 3