For people like me - who do believe the Biblical account - it is a strange situation. I kind of dated a Biblical Evolutionist long ago. When we found we differed in this he asked me how did the whales and other big water creatures get on board the Ark? How did they even get on board before it started to rain? But some evolutionists who did did not hold to the Bible said whales probably had some little hind legs. It makes perfect sense to me, I think the whales and the sea cows walked on board the ark. And this is because I'm using the same info and discoveries that evolutionists use to say there cannot be Biblical exactness. Hmm.
38 comments
Evolution doesn't support the idea that fully formed legs can vanish in 6,000 years. Nor does the law of gravity and common sense allow for a mammal with the bone structure and mass of a great blue wale to be able to walk on "little hind legs."
Re: Zadic
when you say "kind of dated" you mean "bonked, but not exclusively, and I don't want to admit it", right?
Rysith: I never thought of that for a second, but it's an excellent point and makes the problem even worse as fish are very sensitive to sudden changes made to the water they live in. So, it would in fact cause huge problems for both fresh and salt water fish, meaning that Noah would've had to store vast aquariums on the Ark.
I think I'm missing the problem here...why would water dwelling mamals need a spot on the ark...? Did he bring the fish on, too?!?seven of them on board. Maybe he put them next to the seven elephants.
Supposedly, the ark was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
They actually had an argument over that...
Whales, who live in the water anyway, walked into the Ark on "little hind legs" that couldn't possibly support them. And this makes perfect sense to her? This sounds like something straight out of the Landover Baptist website.
That's one of the major problems with the bible - it tries to transpose the origins of life on Earth from the sea to the land, and fails collosally.
Okay. New Personal Conviction: No more FSTDT before bed. The stupid will give me nightmares. Tonight it will be whales, with hind legs, screaming in horror, as they are engulfed in waves.
time4clue: "What about the whales? Wouldn't they drown in the flood?"
Well, hey, if he thinks that whales once had legs and walked on the ark, then he's a Biblical Evolutionist himself, albeit a very ignorant one.
Forget getting any work done this afternoon, I can't get the image of a blue whale tap-dancing on it's little legs out of my head.
MAKE IT STOP SOMEONE PLEASE!
"I think the whales and the sea cows walked on board the ark" "It makes perfect sense to me "
Even with this transparent aluminium in the cargo hold o' this Klingon Bird o' Prey, she cannae take nae more bull- or whale shit, Cap'n! Ye cannae change the laws o' Reality!
[/Scotty] [/"Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"] [/nerd]
Whales walked onto an overcrowded boat, to avoid being drowned in a flood? Really??
Gawd, these flood apologists get dumber by the minute.
Entertaining the god of the gaps by cherry picking what is convenient, ignoring the rest, to attempt to consolidate old human mythology with knowledge that contradicts it, denying that the mythology is symbolic and should be put in its Iron Age context. Ignorance about not only science and its discoveries, but also about the origins and compilation of the scriptures. I assume that the poster means theistic evolutionist when using "Biblical Evolutionist", a common Christian point of view where mythology is understood to be distinct from science, scientific discoveries about the natural world do not need to be denied, while still entertaining a belief in god and an afterlife.
To take the flood myth literaly, one has to ignore its previous polytheistic origin, as well as entertain incredible magical fantasies, while rejecting or ignoring all the evidence for an old earth and the lack of evidence for an actual universal flood, all the evidence of gradual evolution, etc. Even human history. A minimal understanding of ecology makes it completely untenable. "Flood geology" is not science either.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
