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

Quote# 91043

[why would God give a whale lungs, placental reproduction, live birth where the mother must lift the baby up to breath, and mammary glands instead of the design of a fish? God even gave the whale the underlying skeleton homologous to other mammals, instead of one of a fish.]

why not? There are trillions of different designs, features and abilities in nature. The simple answer is diversity. God, it seems to me, loves demonstrating Himself by making unique and diverse works of art. And the funny thing is, keeping with mammals, is that all mammals share pretty much the same set of genes, no matter what they look like. It's almost like God is playing with scientists, like humans can play with cats with a piece of yarn. The idea that a mammal one day decided to start playing in the ocean and then evolve new and different traits so that he could one day swim in the depths strikes me as lunacy.


supersport, CARM 46 Comments [12/1/2012 5:04:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 41
Submitted By: dpareja
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Reynardine

Drive carefully. The lunacy you point out may be your own.

12/1/2012 5:11:15 AM

Justanotheratheist

Well, I agree there are many different "abilities" in nature. Supersport is living proof that some people are very, very stupid.

12/1/2012 5:15:37 AM

Tempus

You also believe that molecules are intelligent and self-aware. Believing that whales started out as land creatures isn't half as crazy as you.

12/1/2012 5:16:33 AM

OhJohnNo

"why not? There are trillions of different designs, features and abilities in nature. The simple answer is diversity. God, it seems to me, loves demonstrating Himself by making unique and diverse works of art."

I'm actually pretty OK with this particular line of reasoning, but then it becomes depressingly stereotypical anti-evolutionist bullshit.

12/1/2012 5:18:53 AM

dylanstrategie

Evolution pretty muchs tells me that fishes had a good reason to evolve traits that allowed them to swim in the depths :

They could escape the predators that didn't develop these traits and find new sources of enrgy deep below (ex : Geothermal energy)

And mammals (whales) didn't just "play in water and morphed into a fish". I don't feel like checking the whale's evolution pattern but I'm sure at some point it became an animal likewise to a walrus before becoming a full-blown "fish" (Whales are mammals, like dolphins)

You're pretty much doing the apology of evolution with your post

Oh, and first fundie of this month you handsome rogue !

12/1/2012 5:20:30 AM

Hasan Prishtina

Perhaps, supersport, whales flew around in the air before deciding they liked water better...

12/1/2012 5:45:48 AM

Mudak

So are you suggesting that god isn't so much an intelligent designer as he is a sadistic and/or malicious designer?

12/1/2012 5:46:52 AM



God made parasites that like to bite your testicles for the lulz.

12/1/2012 6:04:41 AM

Canadia

This is the only time I've ever seen Supersport counting diversity as a positive thing.

12/1/2012 6:16:57 AM

Reynardine

The ancestors of whales were both similar to, and related to, modern hippopotami. If you've ever seen underwater photography of a hippopotamus, you'll see how it happened.

12/1/2012 6:20:32 AM

Ebon

And yet, you still can't credit God with having enough imagination to use evolution as the mechanism.

@ Mudak:
That's actually what my faith teaches. When you think about it, it makes far more sense than a loving god.

12/1/2012 7:06:00 AM

Horsefeathers

"why not? There are trillions of different designs, features and abilities in nature."

Nobody argues that.

The point is a whale, as "designed", is a piss-poor way to go for an ocean going creature so why would your omnimax deity create it that way?

You may as well plop a creature that is largely a fish, complete with gills and eyes that see perfectly well under water but not out of it, into the Sahara desert. Sure, it might be able to survive, but it's not the optimal design that I would expect from an omnimax deity.

"The simple answer is diversity. God, it seems to me, loves demonstrating Himself by making unique and diverse works of art."

The ocean is more full of diverse forms of life than jungles, which is saying something. Why add in creatures like dolphins and whales that are not particularly well suited to it given that they're fucking mammals?

"And the funny thing is, keeping with mammals, is that all mammals share pretty much the same set of genes, no matter what they look like. It's almost like God is playing with scientists, like humans can play with cats with a piece of yarn."

Say what?

"The idea that a mammal one day decided to start playing in the ocean and then evolve new and different traits so that he could one day swim in the depths strikes me as lunacy."

Obviously, when you put it like that. Which you do, intentionally, just to make it seem absurd.

You know perfectly well what the evolutionary path of whales was because people have explained it to you before.

You just keep stuffing more straw into your strawman though. Maybe one day he'll fall on you.

12/1/2012 7:35:49 AM

Doubting Thomas

Funny how they can believe that an all-powerful deity created the entire universe in 6 days by using magic, but they can't believe that a fish grew legs (or, in this case, a mammal took to the ocean).

12/1/2012 8:32:29 AM

Raised by Horses

tl;dr: "Why aren't whales fish?"

Herman Melville, is that yo-

Oh, wait. It's just SuperSport. Never mind.

12/1/2012 8:37:53 AM

Mister Spak

Why would god create all plants and animals with a hierarchical pattern of similarities and differences if that pattern was a clear sign that evolution is true? Is god trying to lie to you?

12/1/2012 8:37:56 AM

rrpostal

Way to avoid the actual point by claiming the failure is "art". So apparently every cock up by God is now just an "artistic choice".

12/1/2012 8:37:59 AM

John

God, it seems to me, loves demonstrating Himself by making unique and diverse works of art.

But the whale is not a "unique and diverse work of art". That's the point being made by the OP: the whale is kludged together out of land animal parts. The whale may be successful in the sea, but how does it benefit by not having gills?

12/1/2012 8:38:25 AM

Bad Wolf

"Works of art" ..."The bird is cruel!"

12/1/2012 9:18:22 AM

Swede

Ever watched a dog near the ocean? Most dogs that I have seen at beaches love to run into the water and skip and play in it. It doesn't take that much imagination to see a dog-like mammal a few million years ago spending all of its time at the beach, and any offspring with less fur and larger lungs, big paws and ability to close the nostrils, would prosper in such a pack, and spread its genes around.

12/1/2012 9:20:57 AM



"The idea that a mammal one day decided to start playing in the ocean and then evolve new and different traits so that he could one day swim in the depths strikes me as lunacy."

But the idea that a god would intentionally create things with the intentions of deceiving people, then sending those people to a torture chamber for eternity for the finite crime of falling for the very deceptions it created is not lunacy?

12/1/2012 10:32:08 AM



???? So God is FOR diversity......except when he is not. You know, mammels of the sea= FOR. People= umm, not so much.

12/1/2012 10:51:34 AM



So, luck is what you're saying? Pure luck?

12/1/2012 10:59:08 AM

Papabear

right, except for the fact that all the evidence supports the ToE explanation for whales and none of it supports the Supersport tale.

12/1/2012 11:02:11 AM

UHM

It is lunacy, because it wasn't one but hundreds if not thousands of generations.

12/1/2012 11:39:54 AM

Reynardine

Swede, it was actually doglike mammals who became seals and sea lions

12/1/2012 11:47:56 AM
1 2