digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Explain this, creationists

stromdotcom.blogspot.com — A shark with webbed feet discovered in Malaysia.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -124/+23biased title, and that fish is hideous, but dugg anyway
    • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -32/+17Dugg for the title. =P
      • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -23/+11Buried for the title. Artilce had a cool picture, but said nothing about evolution or creationism. Submitter just falls into digg's obsession with creationists
        • Cwo655321, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4everyone knows that there is nothing left to discover on earth...

          lolz
      • cptn_cardboard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Sharks with feet?
        OH *****
    • naio, on 10/10/2007, -29/+31WTF has a mutant shark to do with creationism?
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36Easy to explain...

        On the 14,563,297,387,984,115,982th day, God created monkey fish frog.

        http://tinyurl.com/3ch6wx
      • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Evolution is just a fancy term for "sequential beneficial mutation" for starters.
        • airquotes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8seems less fancy then the other one actually
    • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+45When the shark is found with hair and lungs living in trees, they'll be convinced. The monkeys, however, will be pissed.
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Well, now it's gonna take some additonal time. For all those years sharks have been trying to grow legs; now one finally has, only to get caught in a net. Time to start over. Maybe next time, they'll grow knives instead of legs, to help them get though those nets!
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Monkeys are sharks with hair and lungs and living in trees.
    • pap3rw8, on 10/10/2007, -13/+39I'm not a creationist (I believe in evolution), but here's how a creationist would explain this:
      God put that creature there to fool you devil-worshipping scientists into believing evolution. "Scientific evidence" like this against our solid belief is just a test of faith.
      /end creation-speak
      I'm a christian, creationists make me embarrassed to admit that fact.
      The title of this article is really idiotic. Submitter is just looking to bring in the diggs with cheap tricks.
      • quarkie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Or alternatively:
        evolution is the method through which god creates the world.

        I take evolution as scientific fact, but is there any real difference between an infinite universe (one that either just came into existence or has been in existence for all time) and an all-knowing god (one that either just came into existence or has been in existence for all time?)
        • HairyFotr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Two differences: Occam's razor, and a few theories that as far as we can tell describe an infinite universe. And science has not said the last word on the subject... maybe there will be a better theory available tommorow. Since according to creationists this god cannot be described and his existance must not be questioned, there is not really a good way to compare these two.
          • spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You can't rely on people who believe in god to have faith in the simplest, most plausible explanation.
          • punx777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I really just wanted to send this tree of comments out further! Good call tho spy
      • thePuck77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes there is: we can actually observe the universe. The issue of "from nothing, nothing comes" is a philosophical argument about metaphysics...it's one of those things we think we know about how reality, as a whole, works, but really it's just a pithy statement about what humans can think comfortably about. The actual observable existence of the universe is a truth-claim, and is not just a fancy argument in metaphysics. Since the need for a "cause" of the universe in infinite time is just a philosophical need, it doesn't somehow outstrip or overwhelm the actual observable claim.

        In other words, we might not need a infinite god or infinite universe, we just think we do because of our ideas about philosophy.
        • quarkie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Thanks for the reply. However, I never said that the universe didn't exist, I just asked what created it, where did it come from? I ask you though: can we observe what came before the universe as we know it? what was there before the big bang?

          My point was more that creationists always say that the idea of an universe is infinite is silly and scientists always say that the idea of a god is silly. In truth neither has any evidence to say that the creation the universe was/wasn't guided by a god (or a FSM if you will). The fact that you believe that the idea of a "god" is silly doesn't make it potentially invalid.

          While it is reprehensible for creationists to push their views onto others as science, it is equally reprehensible for scientists to push their views onto creationists as religion (or even to demean/look down on their views). Science is the study of observation and I agree that hence things based on observation should be taught - tell me what created the universe, how should we teach this, and what are your observations based on?

          Thats the beauty of free speech - let people believe what they will.
      • hatdrop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0it's the babelfish...QED
    • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The funny thing is that anyone supposedly "scientific" would think that there's not enough existing programming capability in DNA and RNA to account for mutations or changes -- to adapt to environmental stress. Clearly species and individual variations must trace back to DNA and RNA coding. The idea that simple gene swapping accounts for most species variation is like saying that any program can function as a result of a random coin flip -- instead of all the massive coding available. Living organisms are magnitudes of order more complex than software. Slicing out pieces of Linux and randomly dumping them in Windows just won't yield anything but a mess. Evolutionism argues for "reductio ad absurdum." There's clearly enough "coding" in fish to allow for fin variations, within the same species or across species.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah. There's enough coding in DNA to account for anything. We all have DNA/RNA, but it changes occasionally and that might cause a protein to mistranslated and that willl cause a change and that might be beneficial, It happens a lot, but almost nothing ever comes of it.
        • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Hehe! That's the point. Such minute variations don't make for viable organisms or organs. So if the code for "foot" in place of "fin" exists already in DNA+RNA ... we might have a much more interesting world. External coding material is capable of disrupting function (such as with a virus), but not in bringing about new abilities, (without a little scientific design help in the process).

          I love it when scientists that do gene splicing assert there is no intelligent design.
          • Matri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You are deliberately misrepresenting the entire basis of the evolution-creation argument.
    • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I don't understand how the title is relevant -- at all. It's a shark with webbed feet. It could be deformed, or it could be some strange newly discovered species.
      • ProfChaosOmega, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or, it could be "evolution."
      • arcthemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0But we don't even know that they are feet, or anything remotely like feet. Sure, they kind of look like feet, but that means pretty much nothing. It looks like there's been a cut made to make them more pronounced, and it may well be the result of an injury the shark suffered.

        It's a shark, and it's got things on it that sort of look like feet. It's not even news.
    • machinegunopera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg anyway?
  • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -109/+21Wheres yer god now, yaw...
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -17/+39Pretty sure nothing changed with my god after the submission of this article....
      • DrDragun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Best Digg troll name evar
      • huckmank, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14Wow, a neo-con whose world view doesn't coincide with reality. Who'd have thunk it?
      • enzideout, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9I agree. How does this disprove creationism? Those "feet" could be a mutation like 2 undeveloped tails
        • bonedead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Gee a mutation, such a word couldn't possibly stand for anything beneficial. Nope, all is negative when it comes to mutation.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People actually think that? Wow. I thought that was just a strawman.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course it's a mutation! What else would it be? Mutations are what evolution runs on.
    • CamZak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22I dunno, if I were to base my views on grainy pictures found on the internet...I'd say those pictures don't back evolution. Assuming the pictures are real, there's three evolutionary explanations:
      1) Shark is a mutant, has some very odd deformations.
      2) Sharks are evolving to eventually walk on land...all they need now are laser beams.
      3) Sharks ancestors sometimes had legs and could walk on land, this shark suffers from a mutation that activated the dormant leg genes. Such a find would be revolutionary...as fish are generally viewed to be...well fish, leaving water for only a brief amount of time.

      I vote for number 2.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So is this one of them nasty land sharks?
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -13/+10SuperWinner:

      You haven't a clue what you are talking about to you? You have any idea how vast the world ocean is? Any idea how little we know about the life it contains? We only know of a small fraction of what's out there. You are guilty of the same crap you accuse theists of being guilty of. So they found an odd shark. Hmmm.... Since it's still alive it doesn't quite qualify as a fossile. You are saying that this shark is proof land animals came from the ocean. This is your own leap of FAITH. You have nothing to back this idea up. At lest no hard facts. I'm no believer in any kind of a god nor am I so ignorat to say I know no such thing exists since I am fully aware of the fact that you can not disproove the existance of something which is supposed to exist outside of our physical reality and is pretty much outside our ability to test for. Lack of proof is not proof. Try to remember that. ***** by your reasoning if I went out into the desert and saw no animal life (which I haven't to be honest the 3 times I've been out there) I would be able to say there is no animal life in the desert. I'd be 100% wrong but hey!
      • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12"You have nothing to back this idea up."

        Except... you know... a fish with legs. Oh, and the fossils of other species that have done something similar. Other than that though...
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7That isn't proof you moron. Take some zoology classes. There are plenty of animals out there who look like they are or should be related but when you look under the hood (genetics) they are in no way related. Nice way to assume ***** based on nothing but what you see externally. I'm glad you aren't a scientist we'd be in big trouble if you were.
          • takamalak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6You argue like a mother-***** idiot.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8So when the genetics DO prove the relationship such as..oh humans and orangutans, you agree with that finding?
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep I believe genetic tests over structural design observation any day. Like I said before there are plenty of examples of animals who look like they are related but after genetic testing you find they are not related at all. Both species utilized the same structural design to overcome similar problem. Is that so hard to understand? I am not saying evolution isn't real. I know damn well it's real. We can see it in action in short lived organisms like insects and microbes. This is the best evidence for evolution. Basing your belief or disbelief in evolution on a photograph of an unknown marine animal is pretty stupid.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If it looks like a duck and quacks liek a duck it does not mean it's a duck contrary to popular belief
        • MrSidnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tries to have sex with other male ducks, then it's probably a homosexual duck.
          Sorry, inside joke here...
      • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2@norman619, are you completely retarded?

        Now, why is my comment buried? Did the religious ***** just gang up on me or what?
    • MrHappy123, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1God said "Let them walk" and they walked.

      You know what's funny? It only seems that this fish has finally caught on, there are billions in the ocean without legs. They must be the ones who workship the devil...must be ... because evolution doesn't explain it!
      • Drizzt495, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1God never said 'Let them walk'. Read a Bible before you quote it lol
        • Garbagio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You suck. go back to your fantasy novels. Bible included. (oh snap)
        • MrHappy123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fine, you can have your Harry Potter book back
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3God reigns over his creation and every shark in it. Go read a book on shark physiology and stop embarrassing the honest evolutionists.
  • allquieton, on 10/10/2007, -72/+677It sounds like you're trying to rub something in...but what? Creationists don't struggle to explain the existence of web-footed sharks anymore than they do cows. It's not like you found something God couldn't have created.
    • crawfishsoul, on 10/10/2007, -20/+70And, regardless. What the hell does a 300x400 grainy picture on the Internet prove anyway? That even pictures taken with your ***** camera phone can be photoshopped?
      • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16The article only said this is the first time it was found in Malasian waters. It sounds like things like this have been known for a while in other parts of the world. There are a lot of wierd animals out there, this is not surprising to me.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Teh guy who posted this is the one claiming this is proof of something. Retarded as that sounds.
      • ThePooder, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1I believe you mean “enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software”
    • redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -12/+160Yes but could god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? - Homer Simpson (on weed)
      • SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Ahhh... fun with absolutes.
      • arobar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39As noodle scratchers go, that's a dilly of a pickle.
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9A shark walks into a bar and says, "Gimme a shot of whiskey."

        The bartender says, "Bite me."
      • adoggz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Only if god wanted to.
      • tonaros, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6For accuracy's sake: Homer asks if Jesus could microwave a burrito he himself could not eat.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Ah, but depending on the branch they do hold that there are some sort of conveniently-very-vaguely-defined unscientific "types" of animals which were independently created. Presumably things with feet and things with fins are not in the same "type".
    • xpose, on 10/10/2007, -40/+7Die slow. This is digg. God is teh sux.
    • seandoof, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Short of animals reproducing and evolving in front of human eyes (and hopefully a Discovery Channel documentary crew), the debate will go on. Game over.
      • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9As long as reality (i.e. evolution) deniers exist, the debate will go.
        • WernerCD, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Until someone creates a time machine, and comes back with proof (and somehow convinces the world its not a hoax) -- the debate will go on.

          Evidence can be spun either way - no different than anything else. Evolution or creationists are spin jockeys.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Evidence can NOT be spun while remaining truthful. Take a look at FNC, creationism/ID, or 9/11 truthers.
      • jtmeyer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7there is no debate though. not among scientists and the educated. its a theory that is just as sound as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
      • theantix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It does happen in front of human eyes. Perhaps the most famous and well documented case being The Beak of the Finch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch
        • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5To play devil's advocate: That's an example of micro evolution. The finches are still finches, they haven't evolved into another species.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There's absolutely no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution aside from the timescale involved. NONE. If someone you know has been trying to say otherwise, you might want to look up the actual truth (wikipedia is a good place to start), and perhaps educate or avoid that person's advice in the future. They are misleading you.
          • Bennmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You may actually be the one mistaken.
            adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation) is not always
            speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
    • huckmank, on 10/10/2007, -12/+27I think the point is that sharks have no need for feet, so why would an all-knowing, unerring God graft such appendages onto it. Same argument as with the human appendix, etc. Of course it won't work, as no arguments work against religionists because they can always fall back on faith. That's why it's best to just avoid arguing with them.
      • wicketr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6There are plenty of marine animals that walk along the bottom of the ocean scouring for food. There are 1000s of varieties of sharks. This variety happens to have feet. And as the article states there are other known sharks with feet as well.
      • foomojive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4we also have no need for eyebrows, pinky toes, pubic hair, and many other things.
        • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10No need for eyebrows?!?! How else can I show my angry face? >: (
        • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Actually, body hair us used for lubrication (pubic and under-arm) and our eyebrows are used to prevent sweat and stuff getting in out eyes, also for medium distance non-verbal communication as king gorilla stated.

          What we certainly don't need is our appendix!
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2What?! If I didn't have my pinky toe I'd be falling all over the place.
        • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How ignorant you are. Chop off your pinky toes (with local anaesthetic) and see how fast you can run while the sweat pours into your unprotected eyes....
          • hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2not to mention how annoyingly his nether parts would stick together for a guy past puberty without pubic hair
        • ap123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Male nipples anybody? I can't find a damn use for those.
    • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35It took me a minute, but I think the submitter's idea was that since this species is currently unidentified, it must be new, and therefor must have recently evolved, hence disproving creationism.

      Doesn't hold up though. Scientists discover new species every year, especially in the world's oceans, as well as in secluded caves. This isn't so much because these are new species, as it is because they live in places people just couldn't get before.

      I'd venture that the creationist response would be that either this picture is:
      1) Of a shark with a birth defect
      2) Doctored in some way
      or
      3) Of one of the many creatures created at creation, which scientists have simply failed to catalog during the last 6,000 years
      • DrIce926, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Isn't a birth "defect" the starting point of potential evolution, though? That is, if the altered genes get passed down successfully?
        • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0A birth defect results from damaged or destroyed genes, but is within bounds of previously existing DNA.
          Unless this shark is a new specie, it simply has deformed male shark sex organs, which are at least located and basically shaped like all male shark claspers are.
      • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5No, evolution requires the development of new genetic information, something which, to my knowledge, has never be shown to occur.
        • thisslowdecay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is incorrect. The environment is a larger part of the evolutionary process than genetic information. Because of the random arrangement of genes (new genetic combinations) any given "different" expression of that gene combination will either a) do nothing in accordance with the current environment for the given organism, b) hinder its ability to reproduce or c) enhance that ability (evolution). To simply attribute genetic variation as the only way evolution occurs is absurd and severely shortsighted. Evolution is about environmental niches and the ways organisms have inherent variations to exploit those niches.
          • Dunadan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is true for MICRO evolution, but MACRO evolution does require new genetic information. If you don't understand let me give you an example. It's exaggerated to show what I mean but it works. You could take all the genes in a frog and rearrange them in every possible pattern in every possible hospitable environment but you wouldn't every be able to get feathers. Frogs simply do not have the genetic information for feathers and no amount of micro evolution without the introduction of new genetic information would be able to produce feathers. New information is required for micro-evolution changes to stack up to macro evolutionary changes.
      • MadEnvoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FTA- "As far as I am concerned, fish species with legs or bony fins can only be discovered in the waters of North Sulawesi in Indonesia or South Africa.” - So, doesn't look like a new species but maybe a migration.
    • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -28/+14Wow, as a creationist, this is kind of humorous. Get with the picture atheists -- is this supposed to prove there is no god? All this proves is one of two things: the very likely genetic mutation due to an outside cause, most likely pollution of some kind, or the amazingly unlikely event that this animal randomly up and changed, what 0.5% of its DNA and "evolved" into another creature. I do hate to brake that theory though, but our world isn't Pokemon, and Sharkmon doesn' turn into Legsharkmon overnight.

      Either way, this does absolutely nothing to prove anything about creationism or whatever.
      • seandoof, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Not all people who believe in evolution are atheists. That would be like me assuming you are a Republican. I'm no scientists but don't mutations (whatever their cause) usually involve appendages that you'd expect the animal to already have? I could understand your argument if we were talking about an extra fin or two.
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't think humans have begun to claim they understand mutation caused by chemicals and radiation to an extent where we can say that this is in all likelihood, not possible.

          Unfortunately I don't know enough about a sharks physiology to be able to tell you if the existence of two leg like appendages is completely ***** up for it's dna make up, or if it at one point had some sort of appendage, or whatever. I'm no biologist.

          I'm no Republican, it's either Obama or on the off-chance Ron get's there, it'll be him.
          • Inverno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9digg me down. I realized I was turning into a retarded troll. Time to take a break from digg.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1"Not all people who believe in evolution are atheists."

          Not all people who doubt macro evolution are creationists. Many scientists doubt macro evolution. Surprised?
          • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not really. Most scientists aren't evolutionary biologists. I'm not shocked if my HS Physics teacher denied evolution...

            Occam's Razor still supports it since micro-evolution is proven and macro-evolution is conceivable from micro-evolution.
      • rabidg00se, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2But those are the same thing. That very likely genetic mutation due to an outside cause, if the shark manages to reproduce, will get passed on. If the animals with legs reproduce more than the animals without them, well...that's evolution.

        In conclusion, fail.

        EDIT: And that's Digimon.
      • itanshi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"animal randomly up and changed" is god like, not evolution. Evolution makes no mistakes because it make every mistake. It is gradual and uniformly random as the color of our skin is through the process of reproduction. The fact that we change skin color from generation to generation is a proof of evolution and change. This does not disprove god, but it does disprove conventional creationism which has never been tested or proved and therefor is not a theory, but a hypothesis.
    • hockeysk8, on 10/10/2007, -18/+26Exactly, you can't have an argument with creationists. The answer will always be "God can do everything and anything. He is all powerful." Any evidence of evolution (or any other scientific principal for that matter) can easily be refuted with "God 'planted' the evidence." When you have faith, why would you need reason?
      • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -11/+17Actually creationist like me believe "God is all powerful", and science is the ruleset that enables existence as we know it, so therefore God created this rulset in order to accommodate the creation of our universe. Evolution and any other theory, should it/they actually be fact, would therefore be the human explanation of what God created, and not some damning evidence against his existence.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Great reply. You've just defined God into Physics. Now you just have to prove that Physics is actually intelligent and has a plan for mankind.
          • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Actually I've said that physics is a ruleset God created in order for this universe to exist. I believe physics is a set of laws that were created in order for our world to exist as God wanted it to exist.
          • boombye, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Like The Architect and The Matrix....
        • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4betterth, as reasonable as your statement is, that doesn't really align you with creationism. Evolution does not preclude your theory. Strictly speaking, creationists believe life forms were created instantly in their current (or similar) form. Simply ludicrous. Associating yourself with creationism does more harm to your very plausible argument than good. As an agnostic evolutionist, I could see possibility in your statement. I could not see any plausibility in "creation".
          • Vapor17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I disagree, for one thing, "creationist" is a broad term, (but there aren't any good terms for variations, so i won't hold it against you) not all creationists believe that everything was created as it is now, I for one believe in Micro-evolution, evolution within species, but not Macro Evolution, some other "creationists" may believe that everything was created the way it is now, others may believe the bacteria evolved into mankind with God's help, and they all are entitled to their beliefs, and while said beliefs do differ, they would (probably) define themselves as "creationists"

            Also, I think its silly to demand a reason for everything from a person who claims faith in one deity or another, because (most?) religions are an act of faith, and that faith comes into play when they are confronted with something that they don't understand. i would argue that a good Christian would try their best to understand it and how it coincides with their faith, but if they cannot understand it, they would take the two seemingly opposed things and have faith that they somehow both exist.

            Lastly, I have no problem with atheists, just as i have my belief and don't understand their belief completely, i respect their right to have their own belief and not completely understand mine, I do have a problem with people try to force their belief down someone else's, give them your belief and your facts, and discuss it.

            I realize this has been a long and at times poorly worded post, but i think its a good philosophy, and frankly, i have nothing else to do right now
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4betterth, that's not the Abrahamic God you believe in though.
          You are just trying to accommodate both the rational part given by education and intelligence and the religious part given by brainwashing you in the childhood.
          They way you explain God makes God totally unnecessary and pointless - especially worshiping it and other religious BS.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Science - Questions that might never be answered
        Religion - Answers that MUST NEVER be questioned
      • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Why is hockeysk8's comment being dugg down. He is absolutely correct. You CANNOT argue faith with evidence. Creationists should at least be able to agree with that. Or are there some Dembski / Behe style people who think you can PROVE design here?

        Because if you have evidence of design, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I'd like the creationists to shut up and stop trying to argue, because they won't play by the ground rules of argumentation: that if someone gives you evidence, you can't blow it off out of hand because of your gut feelings on the matter and expect to be respected for it.

        Until there is evidence for design, evolution is the best theory going. Sharks with atavistic feet (if they are feet) are just more icing on the cake.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Once again, no argument, just digg the uncomfortable truth down so you don't have to look at it. Intellectual cowards the lot of you faithies. No reasoned arguments, just special pleading over and over and over again punctuated with your hatred of atheists because they don't buy into your ***** up fairy tales after you've had decades of indoctrination to instill them into the populace. Poor, poor Christians.
          • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2What the ***** are you talking about? Atheists run digg, and this is the first Christian digg article I've ever said something pro-Christian and not been totally dugg into oblivion. Don't pretend atheists are the underdog, on Digg they digg down everything that could be accidentally mistaken for pro-Christian.
      • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Actually evolutionists believe evolution can produce anything and everything. That's why it can't be tested of disproved; anything that happens can be explained by evolution.
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, they patently do not. Educate yourself.
        • Tanath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Find a rabbit in the pre-cambrian.
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3bonhoeffer, you are an idiot.
          Evolution must play and plays by the rules called reality. ID is lame magic.
    • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I don't care. Call me when you find a tap-dancing, singing shark...I want to be RICH!

      But he'll probably just sit in the box when other people appear, just like the ***** frog did. :(
      • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I guess everyone here is too young to have seen those cartoons. *sigh*
        • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding me? I recall that was ranked one of the top 10 best ever animated shorts. Here's a link for all that may have never seen Chuck Jones' classic Another Froggy Evening:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saU-Bl0feSs
        • keeganspeck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude, I'm 16 and I've seen that. But I do think that I may be one of the last to have really watched those cartoons on Saturday mornings. I can't find them on tv anymore.
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Last year I was on a deep sea fishing trip off of Mexico. On our way home I could have sworn I saw a shark wearing a top hat and carrying a cane in it's fin.
    • andyrobo60, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3God did it.
    • JesusDeluxe, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Yes, It's obviously God's test of faith, like fossils and alter boy BJs. Now be a boy and pucker up
    • biff198, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9And It's not like sharks just "grew legs", came onto land, and evolved into different species. There would have to be a reason for the shark to need to get out of the water in the first place, then it would have to "grow" legs. Then, since the legs are probably void of anything useful, the shark would also have to grow complex muscles designed specifically for the legs. Then, since the muscles alone are useless, it would have to grow a skeletal structure and tendons to attach the muscles to the legs. If it DID somehow just grow a skeleton, then it wouldn't just be in the legs, but would need support of the entire body to work correctly.

      Long story short, if you bring me a monkey, and prove it's a shark, THEN you have an argument...
      • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's a monkey with the head of a shark and the body of a shark! I call him Mark
      • tripsync, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Long story short, if you bring me a monkey, and prove it's a shark, THEN you have an argument..."

        If you bring me any evidence from the supposed 6000 years ago that shows God made existence at that time, then YOU have an argument...
      • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Random genetic mutations occur all the time. Mutations that are not beneficial die off, mutations that are, survive and reproduce. It's conceivable this is an extreme genetic mutation. It would be ridiculous to speculate on the usefulness of this mutation - what you need is a time machine to go ahead in time to see if it happens enough for the mutation to gain ground (pun intended).
    • counterplex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7As far as I know, creationists don't deny natural selection (which could explain the webbed shark) but they do deny evolution (i.e. the whole journey from ape to man). So you _could_ have men created in a variation of their current form who would change over time due to natural selection into what we have now. They don't need to cross species line to make that happen.

      Taking this one step further, what of evolution with a starting point that isn't the same as what we think. We've been looking for a missing link for a while - what if the starting point for Man was immediately past the "missing" link we're talking about? The idea being evolution exists but we have the wrong starting point.

      Thoughts?
      • wileyAU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, you have it backwards. Creationists DO deny natural selection. They believe that all living creatures were creating by God's plan. Strict creationists believe God created all living creatures in their current form a few thousand years ago, by literal interpretation of the Bible. There is also a group of creationists who support the theory of Intelligent Design. That is, they admit that evolution has happened, but that because of the random chance inherent to natural selection, the statistical likelihood of complex life arising is so improbable that there must be an intelligent creator guiding evolution instead of simple natural selection. (Logical fallacy, but I don't really want to get into that here). Finally, as hard as it is for most people on Digg to accept, many Christians belong to a third group (including the Pope per a previous Digg headline) who understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, and that having faith in a higher power does not preclude the process of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection.
    • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I think you're missing the poster's point. How could you find something that God could not have created? Creationists deny speciation - i.e. NEW STUFF!
    • fubes2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now I'm by no means a marine biologist, but that looks like a shark with deformed claspers, aka penises. Yes, sharks have 2, and they are located right in the place where these "legs" are in the picture.

      Also, I'm by NO means a creationist, but sharks just don't decide that one day they're going to sprout legs. Sharks have been sharks for BILLIONS of years. Why the hell would they need to spontaneously sprout penis-legs and walk around now? Certainly not to procreate.

      I think all you underinformed zealots on BOTH side of this argument need to calm the hell down and try to approach things more rationally.
    • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2BILLIONS of years? Hundred millions more so
    • chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Seriously, not all of us who believe God created the world don't simply discount evolution.
    • changyang1230, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Blatant comment hijack here, but this is important so that newcomers aren't misled by the inaccurate information throughout the thread:

      The organs ARE NOT webbed feet, they are claspers, a normal part of the reproductive system in a male shark. It's a typical shark feature, and hence this picture does not, and should not spark debate between evolution and creationism / ID.

      Source:
      http://cephalopodcast.com/blog/2007/03/15/malaysian-shark-with-webbed-feet/
      http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/shark_with_legs.php
  • wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -23/+302"You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with flippin' laser beams attached to their heads..."
    • MadScientist420, on 10/10/2007, -8/+84it's " frickin' " not "flippin' "
      • biff198, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Your use of quotation marks is giving me siezures..
      • wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The mind wanders after staying up to 6AM.
    • houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11No, Scott. No.
    • hellokittyownsu, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1All hail our mighty shark overlords.
    • ziffel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Why don't you just shoot them? I have a gun in bedroom! you can borrow it!
    • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Can we fund a research group to get going on this project?!?!!
    • russelbutt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11i've got a bag full of shhhhh.. with your name on it..
    • wondertwins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0this became like the austin power critique page not about webbed feet sharks
    • mpn401, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0www.shh.com.org
  • tical2756, on 10/10/2007, -44/+398Creationists will explain it the same way they explain everything: "God did it"
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -37/+20I think the most ironic thing about them saying 'god did it' is when they apply that thinking to Athiests. They truly think that atheists are devil worshipers, they cannot understand that being atheist by definition means you cannot believe in satan because he too is just another god, which we do not believe in. They think that satan has tricked us into thinking there is no god, and that he is using us to further his agenda.

      Religious retards can rationalize anything to fit it inside their believe structure.
      • lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -13/+26When did religious peole say atheists are devil worshippers?
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12They're regularly lumped into the same category, at least. (See also: Pat Robertson)
        • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Some really really crazy fundamentalists do believe it, but not most creationists. Some fundamentalists also believe atheists and others are possessed by demons. Seriously. Fortunately those people are in the minority.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, it's a very vocal minority. You guys should really try to get a handle on those folks.
      • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21Hey superwinner, care to elaborate MORE on how everybody else thinks? You're obviously such an expert on it.
      • j3utton, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2the devil isn't a 'god'... atleast understand somebodies beliefs before you go and start 'analyzing' them
        • corrupt1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Satan, according to most churches, is in competition with God and, sometimes he wins, according to those same churches. Since no mortal could ever prevail against a God, Satan must be another God.
        • georgetds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your knowledge is flawed, leading to a flawed conclusion.
        • pgoetz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You completely missed the point. Read again, with comprehension this time.
      • oedenfield, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Calling people "retards" is a sure way to win respect and dignity in someone else's eye. Oh wait.. when do we need respect and dignity in scientific discussion?
    • logicalnoise, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16most zealots refer to atheists as pagans now. which is just people who don't beileve in god. but it's snazzier and somehow adds a negative tone.
      • profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Which is ironic since paganism is a category of - you guessed it - religions.
      • XV745, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Doubly ironic because modern "pagans" are actually polytheistic...
        • XV745, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8LOL, why'd I get dugg down for that?! Perhaps I need to explain it....

          Atheist = 0 gods, Monotheist (Christian) = 1 god, Polytheist = 2+ gods.

          So, a Christian (1 God) calling an Aethiest (0 Gods) a Pagan (2+ gods) is freakin' ironic... not just because paganism is a religion (irony number one pointed out by profOblivion), but doubly so because modern pagans believe in LOTS of gods which, to me, is the polar opposite of believing in ZERO gods.

          You see, it's like... oh, nevermind.
          • DrIce926, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I smell someone who just got SAVED!
          • XV745, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I presume you refer to the person who dugg me down... cuz, I assure you, there's no "saving" me... :)

            ( I've actually been called a "pagan" by a Christian for being Agnostic... )
      • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I know a few Christians who call anyone outside of their own denomination Satan worshipers.
        Catholics? Satan worshipers.
        Atheists? Satan worshipers.
        Buddhists? Satan worshipers.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Satan Worshippers? ... nice chaps, really!
          • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nah Nah. He's got it all wrong - Catholics are Pope worshippers.
        • millinao, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0just for fun, you should make them believe that you actually do worship satan..
          or get one of those voice transformer things, and call him, "HELLO THIS IS SATAN"
      • PaperMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15DING DING DING... Zealots. I am religious. I believe in God. I believe in Science and Darwin. There is room for both. Why is it impossible for God to have created the primordial ooze and Darwin to have taken over from there?

        I have convictions in my belief that there is a higher power. Atheists (as I understand it) have convictions in their belief that there is not a higher power. Are either of us wrong? My belief tells me that I will "find out" when I die. I would imagine that Atheists would also find out when they die. My religion believes in a forgiving God not in the wrath of God. There is room for all of us.
        • rabidg00se, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12You're a testament to everything that's right about Christianity. Good for you.
          • airquotes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7but it doesnt stop religion from being a waste of time. When my mother tried to force me in sunday school, as a child i remember telling her religion is suicide, i mean think of it, a nun or a priest giving their life to something that doesnt exist, you are throwing your life away on par with suicide, its a sin... she still made me go, and 18 years later i feel the same way
          • cleverdiggname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well calling it suicide really isn't true. It would mean that they did nothing special with there lives, but what if it led them to do good deeds, help out others, and keep themselves out of some troubles then I don't have problem with it. To you it may be a waste, but to them it could have made them happy.
        • tomee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I am an atheist, and I have convictions in my belief that there is no higher power just as I have convictions in my belief that there is no celestial teapot orbiting Mars. I believe based on evidence and I believe the word "believe" does not make sense otherwise. Just my two cents.
        • Immij, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sorry, but I couldn't let your use of 'Darwin' slide, he's not some kind of evolutionary wizard he just had some good ideas 150 years ago, evolutionary theory has had the genetic revolution since then. Obviously you're open-minded and we all understand what you mean but a respect for science includes the use of correct terminology. /rant
          • Vapor17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wait... all this time i thought Darwin WAS a wizard.....
          • PaperMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I always get myself in trouble with that! My wife is an anthropologist and I _still_ keep doing it! I blame the Darwin fish!
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There definitely is not room for both. Especially no room for one of the world religions.
        • robbielaney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not in the wrath of God? When is the last time you read the Bible? Revelations, Isiah? Ring a Bell?
    • Battleloser, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8God DID do it, it's not as simple as some would have you believe, but whatever proccess of evolution created that creature was planned and set into motion by him.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21No, heretic, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who set it in motion. I have proof, because it says so in this book here, which is infallible and unerrant, even the bits that contradict the other bits.
      • misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6That's what an increasing number of people think. Like myself.
        What's to say that God couldn't use the evolutionary process to populate the earth?
        • skjede, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15science
          • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Science has proved that evolution is a natural process, however, it is a far different thing to say that science can prove God had nothing to do with it. Of course, those who say God created evolution have nothing tangible to base that on. Science doesn't prove God either way. It explains the diversity of species without having to fall back to "god did it." That statement is added by people with an emotional need to believe it. If creationists were to just say "hey, we realize we can't prove our belief, but it's something that we just 'know' in our hearts and that is why we believe it," I'd be fine with creationists. In fact, many creationists I know ARE like this. However, there are a lot of douchebag creationists out there that try to claim science proves their superstitions by trying to disprove science. They live in the "gaps," what science hasn't discovered, and attack established science with a false dichotomic mentality (if x is wrong, y is automatically right). If that wasn't bad enough, they try to LEGISLATE their mistaken views and FORCE everyone to acknowledge it as viable when it clearly isn't.
          • iticu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Does it? Where?

            (im not Christian btw, your comment just doesn't make sense.)
          • Tanath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If anything were to prove it, it would be science, no?
        • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8"What's to say that God couldn't use the evolutionary process to populate the earth?"

          I have a book here that says there was an Über God who made God and that book also says God only obeys the Über God's commands. God is only a pawn in the game between Über God and Satan in an eternal struggle for domination of the universe, and if anything was populated, it was Über God who did it, not God.

          Seriously, using old books and scrolls as references, how can we even debate it? We can claim anything and everything. The only method that at least tries to make an empirical foundation is science.
        • mstoneburner, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Oh really? Science has proven that God doesn't exist?
          • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Not directly. We've disproven just about everything around him though.

            It begs the question that if we know all the rest of it was false and made up by people who didn't know any better, why is god somehow different? Every single explanation presented by religion for how the world, people, and evolution works has been disproven.

            The sun does not revolve around the earth. The planet is older than 6,000 years. Man was not created in his current form *poof* from mud. We know all this with as near certainty as you can get.

            ...and it goes on and on...
          • MrStylz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Your comment is misguided because you believe that all Christians see the Bible as truth. The Bible is a series of stories and not meant to be interpreted as fact. You need to open your own mind a bit and realize that there are wide-ranging beliefs and the fact that man was made from mud is not believed by a vast number of Christians.

            By your words it is very apparent that you haven't done due research nor have you even explored the idea of OTHER ideas. Get a clue first before you come up with what you will live your life by.
          • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Funny, I went to church up until I moved out (due to my parents). The book of genesis was read to me many times, and nobody ever even suggested to me it was not true. Our church was pretty liberal too.

            "Your comment is misguided because you believe that all Christians see the Bible as truth."

            If you don't see it as truth, then why are you defending it? If you don't see it as truth why are you basing your life on it at all? That's like me saying I'm going to live my life by the teachings of Harry Potter.

            "nor have you even explored the idea of OTHER ideas. "

            Actually I spent years trying to reconcile the two. Being raised with it shoved down my throat left me grappling trying to make the book fit in with the reality I saw. Eventually I realized that it just was not possible. Every single viewable, testable, concept introduced by the bible was just flat out wrong. If those parts were all so universally wrong, why should I believe the other parts to be true? Simply because I can't test them?

            "You need to open your own mind a bit and realize that there are wide-ranging beliefs and the fact that man was made from mud is not believed by a vast number of Christians."

            Where in the Bible does it say "cherry pick the parts you like"? That's like me saying I think the whole plot, story, and science in the Harry Potter books is silly. But I still intend to base my life on it.
        • Mitchbones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe the fact that god doesn't exist?
        • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When did Christ prove that Zeus didn't exist. When you hold him to the same standards you hold me, then I'll be willing to discuss it with you.
      • g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Believe that all you like, just so long as you have the honesty to admit that faith is the basis for that belief rather than science I have no quarrel with you. Please keep it out of the science classroom, however, until such a time as you can substantiate it with evidence.
        • Battleloser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh but this is where you're wrong. I was raised an atheist, became agnostic later in life. The existence of god, or a god like being, or something we call god but isn't an entity at all is the ONLY theory as to the creation of the universe, and once you acknowledge this, and honestly search your conciousness for answers, the existence of true prophets becomes that much more plausible.
        • g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, we're talking more about the origins of life here and god is most certainly *not* the only theory as far as that one goes. If you want to push the question back to to the origins of the universe I'm poorly qualified to discuss the science of it since I don't have much interest, but it seems to me you are presuming a problem where none might exist: The problem 'god' seems designed to answer is how did the universe come into existence? This assumes that the natural state of things is nothingness, but there is little reason to belive this need be the case. If nothingness is not the natural state of things there is little need for a 'god' to 'create the universe'. What's more, if nothingness were the natural state of things, how in heck did 'god' come into being?

          I consider myself a practicing agnostic, and not an atheist, but I can't see anything scientific about creationism. It seems to work backwards by appealing to the things we don't know rather than we do. Some people have put forward methodological naturalism (the search for natural causes for natural phenomena) as a way for scientists to go about science despite their religious belifs, but I think in a way that it serves well as a definition for science itself. Belief in a creator may be philosophical, it may be religious, it may even be correct, but it still ain't science.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17God created atheists?
      • solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8You're forgetting free will.. the whole point of his human creation.
        • jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Free will.. as long as you while you are practicing your free will you adhere to a strict set of rules and doctrines which will guarantee your pass into heaven. Like avoiding certain words and denying earthly pleasures and repenting any sort of natural human desire you might have. If not you can practice that "other" kind of free will without restrictions.. but you'll burn for eternity. It's totally up to you.

          If free will was the "whole point" of "his" human creation then "he" failed to make that point. Miserably.
        • MattyBruce, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"strict set of rules and doctrines which will guarantee your pass to heaven" the bible says That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
      • houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And then there was a flood...
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We refer to that as a BSOD, fortunately God managed to save most of the animal kingdom and a couple humans onto disk before it crashed.
      • robbielaney, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2

        "God does not, by the instant gift of His Spirit, make us always feel right, desire good, love purity, aspire Him and His Will . . . The truth is this: He wants to make us in His own image, choosing the good, refusing the evil. How should He effect this if He were always moving us from within, as He does at divine intervals . . . For God made our individuality as well as, and a greater marvel than, our dependence; made our apartness from Himself . . . for the Godhead is still at the root, is making root of our individuality, and the freer the man, the stronger the bond that binds him to Him who made his freedom."

        ~George MacDonald
        • Barlo_Mung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hmmm. I really FEEL like I want to make sense of that. And I see how it may FEEL good to believe that it does make sense but alas it does not.
          • robbielaney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe it doesn't make since because you reject the truth!
    • BigJ27, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2You just might actually be proof of evolution. Monkey brains.
    • daarcher, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10I the Creationist:Easy that is a mutation, unless you show me more of this "evolve sharks" with the same "evolutionary trait" then it is just a fluke of nature. Now explain this Evolutionist if evolution is supposed to take million of years how come there are no links between that shark and a shark w/o legs.
      Peace and BumbleBee Tuna
      • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If a fluke a nature exists and Creationism is real, then that proves god screws up, which would destroy the universe.
        • daarcher, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Stains, I'm gonna call you Stains, He allowed flukes, just like if your dad had pulled-out in time you would be just another stain on the carpet.
          peace and BumbleBee Tuna
        • g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How very christian of you, daarcher.
        • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lol already to the point where you cant think of anything so you turn to insults? And we atheists believe in birth control, so theres no need to pull out.
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Or it would prove that our world interacts with its own set of scientific rules exactly as He intended.
    • R055, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Yes God did do it, all sharks have them they called claspers used for mating.
      • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hehe everyone is looking at shark penis.
    • iidestined, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2obviously every creature goes through changes. sometimes those changes are passed down. but how does this disprove God?
      • whiteninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope she gets asked to prom
      • pirulo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0it is the other way around, science will not (and doesn't need to) disprove god as it doesn't need to disprove any other mythology.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Explain what? A Malay fish wife says her shark has legs with webbed feet, and eager evolutionists are off and running?
      Its a male shark with claspers attached to its pelvic fins. All that is unusual is that the claspers may be abnormally formed, or this may be an unknown shark species, but the "legs" are definitely shark sex organs. Look it up; don't be so gullible.
      • HelpIamSober, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Alright, alright, someone needs to go over there right now and have sex with it, just to make sure.
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'd hit it.
    • Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Evolutionists will explain it the same way they explain everything: "God didn't do it"
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1totally...those idiots can't even figure it out when it's staring them in the face
    • nextyoyoma, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I hate the term "creationist" And I hate when people decide that anyone that believes that God created the universe is an idiot. I believe God created the universe, and that this shark evolved through evolutionary processes. I don't see the conflict.

      You imply that to say "God did it" is a cop-out, but to me it's a simple statement that summarizes the idea that God created everything (probably using the big bang), and set up the world to work a certain way. Why do natural laws exist? Because God created them. To say "That's just the way they are" is as ignorant as saying that base 10 is the most natural number system. The laws of physics could work any number of ways, but they don't.

      Anyway, this is a stupid rant, but my point is that I wish people here would stop using "creationist" to mean "idiot"
      • dpds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Why do you use the word 'create' so much in describing your views if you hate the term Creationist. Probably because creationists are indeed idiots.
    • foppa69, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1First of all, any evolutionist/atheist should understand what they believe.
      That is, they choose to believe something that cannot ever be proven. Case closed. It's a belief.
      You cannot ever go to the beginning of time (don't start with the equally irrational time travel arguments, if you really think about it it's so
      ridiculous it's not even worth talking about), if that even makes sense, since we aren't really even sure what time is ( see
      http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time ), therefore you cannot prove evolution, nor the big bang, nor the age of the earth, etc.
      None of that. EVER.
      Anyone who knows anything about science knows that although the world may be flat today, it will be round tomorrow. The sun and the
      earth and nothing are all the center of the universe according to periods of rational, scientific thought.
      Belief (or non belief) in God is likewise, in that even if God came to earth right now for all eternity and literally just sat down in New York City, you couldn't prove it was Him (does that even make sense?). Even if we had a way to prove it were God (not possible, even if He were spontaneously causing people to die and be born again 24/7), nonbelievers could still claim it were a hallucination, or eventually see
      it as part of nature, etc. Anything can be rationalized with flawed logic. Conversely, you cannot ever prove God does not exist. The most
      sane and rational comments given by atheists and agnostics is along the lines of no proof, no belief. Well guess what, that doesn't prove
      anything. Just because you cannot prove God exists (or anything else for that matter), that doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Simply put, God
      does not have to prove to you he exists. Imagine for a second that you are God, can't you just dwell in another realm that precludes human
      beings from noticing you? What about simply not giving humans (again I say humans, as animals could have senses we don't understand,
      unless you prove otherwise) the sense that is required to know God? Like a blind man not being able to see. Some call this the indwelling
      of the Holy Ghost. What if you don't have it? Then you have no way of sensing God. It's that easy. So what say you to that, atheists/agnostics/evolutionists?
      Second, now that we have established the belief vs. knowledge concept, how does a picture and report of a baby shark that is dead with a mutation prove anything? Let alone, how does this prove evolutionary theory? That's what we have learned, that mutations exist
      sporadically throughout nature, and that usually, but not always, it results in an early death or a very disordered life. Do you think that somehow because it is a shark and that this mutation looks like what could be two little legs that we have found a missing link in
      evolutionary history? Do you realize the implications of what you are saying? How does this help the fitness of the shark? What separates this from most mutations? Where are its offspring with this mutation kept intact? Don't you know that almost no mutations are passed down, let alone enough generations to cause another mutation that would work in concert with this one to create something greater?
      Not nearly this much faith does it take to believe in a higher power. Have you ever thought about that? How far one must go to explain away evolution. Do you realize that the burden of proof resides naturally on those who disagree with the norm? Look here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
      We'll remove the 23% that Buddhism contributes since a Buddhist doesn't expressly believe in a supreme being. That's at least 60% of the world that believes in at least one God.
      Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheism 1.1 billion
      So prove the theists wrong! The burden is on YOU, not them.
      Finally, forgetting everything I wrote above, how does this serve as evidence for evolution? Couldn't it be construed as proof for creation?
      Allow me to explain. Let's say that this shark actually does have babies. Let's say that we find that it is a new species. Do we know that these pathetic looking folds of skin help the shark survive? No, we don't. OK, so we'd have to study it. But out of the gate, what about
      other mutations? They almost ALWAYS (can't think of an example to the contrary but I say almost to be safe) make it more difficult for the organism to survive. Therefore, it dies out and becomes extinct. I would love for someone to calculate the probability of two generational, sequential, successful, helpful mutations in an organism. That would be a lot of zeros.
      I had to say something here, but for me to continue would be pointle
      • Figs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*humorously begins to consider ways of building a time machine...*
    • CamelToad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Don't take it so seriously, dude. It's just Digg.
    • happynarutoguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Word to that, brother.
  • blast0x, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1first pic reminds me of the ORLY owl
    http://www.orlyowl.com/
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -37/+19Dug down...flame baiting loser.
    • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6which of course means you don't have an explanation.
    • SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So if he was baiting, would that make you the fish?

      Look, another fish with legs!
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -23/+8Photoshop .... /creationist
  • mannaran, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1Fish => Bird => Monkey => Man => ??
    • lex0nyc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Zog
    • Casedot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what is that supposed to mean? Are you wondering what comes next, cause you might have to wait a while...
    • DarKnight90, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Fish
      Bird
      Monkey
      Man
      ???
      Profit
    • maxtangent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 Next is Galactic Human, ***** Galacticus.
    • HelpIamSober, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You forgot lizard. and if you can figure out where they fit, that would be great. those seem to keep changing locations on the evolutionary scale quite often. Thank You.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um, right between fish and bird? Seems pretty simple to me. Frogs go between fish and lizards, and dinosaurs go between lizards and birds.

        /seriously
    • keitarofujiwara, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1European? /sarcasm
  • dan.edwards, on 10/10/2007, -16/+67That's easy... A wizard did it.
  • skjede, on 10/10/2007, -9/+683Am I the only one who isn't concerned with religion but is worried with the concept of land-walking sharks?
  • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -31/+113I'm sure "creationist" is put up there to be swapped out for "Christian," but what the heck... Clear-headed, non-radical Christians / creationists should respond that we don't need to prove it. Showing such a picture does not prove or disprove our God. Maybe evolution is true, but maybe creationism should be explored as well.

    No, this isn't the damning evidence the submitter seems to think it is.

    And yes, I know I'm setting myself up for responses like "hahaha oxymoron -- 'clear-headed creationist.' "
    • chandler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17"I'm sure "creationist" is put up there to be swapped out for "Christian," but what the heck"

      Because Jews or Muslims aren't creationists..?
      • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18No, because Diggers use articles like this to bash Christians.
        • GrantTheGr8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, and I think it's a real shame. I used to be a Christian. I'm not anymore, but it still bothers me when people bash others' religions just for the sake of bashing them. I don't like the title of this article and I almost didn't read the story just because of it, but I think it's an interesting find irregardless of the submitter's bigotry.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Here's my first and last bash at Christians (and only because it's true)...

          What the hell's up with Christians and painting themselves as victims? That was popular 2000 years ago for about a week. Then Christians victimized the jews and "pagans" and painted themselves as the victims OF them...
          Now Christians who have power in the government, lots of money, and giant organizations, still paint themselves as victims as soon as someone opposes a "religious theory" being pushed into schools.... they take it personally saying that it's Christianity that's being insulted, and not creationism.

          Go devolve or something, please. I'm part of a religion that has gotten me physically assaulted, and I don't act like a victim over it.
      • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5There really isn't any parallel to the modern Christian American creationist movement anywhere else in the world. Others may believe in various creation myths, but none of them are quite as fanatical about it.
        • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2One could easily say that American Christian's fanatical belief in creationism is only rivaled by the completely strange and equally powerful fanatical dislike for anything relating to creationism expressed by American atheists. Atheists are just as fanatical about attacking anything Christian and proving their intellectual superiority as any other zealot-esque religion.

          Just because you believe in science and not god doesn't mean you're any less of a stupid, accept whatever i'm told as fact, monkey.
          • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Scientists are fanatical about their evidence-backed theories, and don't much like being told "no you're wrong" with non-facts, often invented to attack them... And they really hate being told they only -believe- in evolution because they're 'fanatics' and atheists.

            If you did all the work, and someone told you that your measured results were fanaticism, you might argue it too.
          • Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sure it does. I fail to see how believing in reason and evidence somehow makes you as ignorant as someone who accepts whatever was written in a 1700 year old book handed them by their parents. Saying it doesn't make it so betterth. And if you weren't so blinded by hatred of atheists you might grasp that.

            Of course, since you implicitly don't believe in objective standards, I'm sure your faith based reasonings on atheist intelligence should be accorded due respect (more like mocking).
        • Locke2053, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Merreborn, you obviously haven't been to Turkey. F A I L

      • hitherebrian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Judaism may have a creation story, but Jewish people don't deny evolution or believe that the world was created 6000 yrs ago.
    • TheCaterpillar, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5I think we need to explore the ramifications on evolution of pasta based deities. Bless you our noodley master! RAmen
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be buried forever!!!
    • jccalhoun, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11And clear-headed, non-radical Christians would say that evolution doesn't have anything to do with God's existence or lack thereof.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Very smart person, jccalhoun.
        Prepare to get buried by the idiots on both sides. My apologies on their behalf.
    • kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Creationism has been explored and found to be false, there's no serious scientists that have explained creationism in any way that stands up to any real scrutiny.

      However, having said that, evolution being true doesn't prove that god didn't exist either, far from it. Most religious people believe in evolution.
      • Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Creationism has been explored and found to be scientifically supported (Read: Bones of Contention, Facts of Life (Dr Gary Parker, The Young Earth, and many other sresources available at AnswersinGenesis.org)
      • MrStylz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4There are 0 scientists in the world that can explain how the big bang happened. They will all agree that it DID happen, but have _no_ clue how or why.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Fortunately, the Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution
        • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3No, but it shows that science, taken to its logical extreme, is a form of faith. A pretty reasonable, predictable, and probable faith--yes, but a faith nevertheless. One must assume the scientific method is an effective way to obtain knowledge, one must assume that the instruments being used in experiments are giving correct results, and one must assume that it is possible to fully comprehend those results. I like science as much as the next guy, but all these science zealots are getting on my nerves (as are the religious zealots).
      • UnderWaterman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0found to be false? cite it
        thanks, douchebag
    • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -11/+13Creationism has been explored and nothing was found to back it up other then faith and a 4000 year old book.
      • MKautz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Creationism has been explored and has found to have evidence supporting it. You only choose to pay attention to evidence that doesn't support it. That's like me saying that Evolution has been explored and found to be false because certain ideas of evolution have been proven to be janky at best but that would be a foolish thing to say as there is much evidence in favor of evolution. Similarly, there is a large amount of evidence that supports creationism.
        • jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2So.. where is that evidence that supports creationism?
        • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Yes, please show us some. Because of all the evidence I've seen, there has been not a shred that even vagualy indicates any credibility in the creationist doctrine.

          If you have any, I'd love to hear it.
        • hankf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I third the motion, lets see some evidence of creationism. I'll even take shoddy evidence.
        • UnderWaterman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4how about you 3 do some research yourself instead of feeding off each other,thx
      • MrStylz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4same, again:
        There are 0 scientists in the world that can explain how the big bang happened. They will all agree that it DID happen, but have _no_ clue how or why. Creationism and evolution can coexist.
        • jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Well it sure is a good thing that we have you here to tell us what ALL scientists agree on and will say if asked. Now we can stop looking for the answer for ourselves and just ask you.
    • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Actually, they both have been explored. Science has come up with a working explanation of most of the universe's phenomena.

      Religion is still sitting there with it's fingers in its ears, saying 'god did it'.

      Creationism is an intellectual dead end. You can explain every question with 'god did it', but it isn't really an explanation - it just looks like one if you don't examine it too closely.
      • Xunnamius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes, they both have been explored. Religion has indeed come up with a working explanation of most of the universe's phenomena. Science is still sitting there with it's fingers in its ears, saying 'god didn't do it'. Science is an intellectual dead end, really. Science is basically just a faith- a petty omnipresent wannabe-know-it-all supremacy-seeking faith.
      • UnderWaterman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Most, except for the whole "how everything started" concept.
    • dacjames, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As a recent convert to evolution, I find one major problem with your assertion, one that I used to also proudly endorse. Creationism cannot actually be "explored." Creationism relies on a single axiom: everything beyond our understanding arose supernaturally.

      For example, a evolutionist may struggle to understand how the chemicals in a bombardier beetle evolved since they exist in a rather precarious equilibrium--he may theorize other uses for intermediate organs or endorse a type of punctuated development. Over time other scientists will read his theories and develop their own until the scientific community as a whole has a general idea about how the bombardier beetle evolved.

      The creationist approaches the "problem" very differently. He sees the bombardier beetle as a mystery but instead of trying to unravel it, he simply states "God created him!" Yes, this solution fits perfectly. But that's not really saying much because a supernatural power can create anything. If anything, this solution only raises more questions: HOW did God create the beetle? Where did God get the energy to create the beetle? For that matter, HOW was God created? Since God can create anything with the appearance of anything else (god can create something that APPEARS to have evolved or APPEARS to be old, etc.) you really can't scientifically argue with a true creationist.

      Suppose I told you the world was actually 3 seconds old and everything , including all your possessions, memories and ideas, was created along with it. Their is no way to argue this assertion other than to simply reject it as ridiculous or at least, irrelevant. Most creationism (aside from those that only attribute the creation of time/space/matter/energy to God and similar) is nothing but a less obviously absurd form of the above.

      If anyone is interested, I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' books on evolution, specifically The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Or, The God Delusion (also Dawkins) has several excellent chapters on the creationism vs. evolution.
      • misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0While you make a valid point, the assertion that the only truly intellectual creationist viewpoint is the Deist's wind-up theory brings about its own complications. The idea of a loving god (as asserted by manyl major religions) contradicts him completely removing himself from the process.

        (I use "him" in the neutral sense)
    • JVIikel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just curious... How does one "explore creationism?" Do we ask God?
  • setfree, on 10/10/2007, -25/+8Someone recently posed this question to me:

    If we evolved from monkeys/apes, then why do scientists have do research them so much to understand them? Shouldn't we Inherently know about our roots? I thought it was something interesting to think about~
    • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15are you questioning why we don't just "know" all the knowledge about apes/monkeys?

      what?
    • Battleloser, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Not really, humans have detached themselves from everything and anything natural, and it's been that way for way to long for us to understand anything but the basics of survival in the wild.
    • tical2756, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18That's stupid. Humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, that existed 5 to 8 million years ago. But the species split into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. Then different species ended up living in different environments (eg. grasslands vs. trees), which ended up favoring the evolution of certain characteristics. Those that stayed in the trees kept more monkey characteristics, whereas we became what we are today.
      • DarKnight90, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What evil?
      • badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Also, an increased diet of fish and cooked food rapidly increased the energy in the brain, and eventually brain capacity.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Dug up for recognizing that stupid "humans evolved from apes" line for the inaccuracy that it is.
        • PamalaLauren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I can't tell you how much it annoys me as a Christian in general to hear people use the "evolved from apes" crap because that's not how it is. It just shows that people are unwilling to actually look at evolution for what it is. Nothing in it has contradicted God in any way. All these damn people put limitations on what God did and that's just plain stupid. It doesn't make sense for God to let people know and find evidence of evolution if it didn't happen in the first place. It's not some damn conspriacy to disprove religion. It's just science. I'm sure God intended us to use our brains and sadly many who follow God are gladly remaining ignorant and stupid.
    • cocytus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Look at how little understand about our selves, why should we have an a priori knowledge of our ancestors?
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12By the same logic I should know my entire family tree by heart.
    • kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, when it comes down to it, our societal structure has many parallels with apes. You have it backwards anyway... we study nature and our origins to understand ourselves.
    • ChzPlz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hell, I can't understand my mother, not to mention monkeys/apes.
    • jccalhoun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My family came from Germany. So should I "inherently" know about Germany?
      We also didn't "come from" apes any more than I "came from" my siblings. We have a common ancestor that was neither a human nor an ape.
    • kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Humans don't have genetic memory. You're not born with your parent knowledge are you?
    • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm failing to understand why we would inherently know about our roots. What is the basis for thinking that?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow, you are retarded beyond belief.
    • Prohest, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0To you and your obiviously incredibly retarded blood-line, the rrenaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasnt it ?.

      Did the priest tell you to say that in sunday school, while he was sexually abusing you ?

      Theres actually a very goog word describing people like you: ***** !
  • supyonamesjosh, on 10/10/2007, -36/+21where are you going after you die?

    explain that evolutionists
    • CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32you? I duno, probably into a casket.
    • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7I'm going to come haunt you.
    • kevindoc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19ummm....in a box in the dirt? in a little ashy urn? take ur pick
      • kevindoc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11o wait...let me satisfy your fears of death....I'm going to a maaaagical place in the sky where everyone is happy and free. I also never forget to leave cookies out for Santa and put my tooth under my pillow for the tooth fairy :-|
    • xobecide, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8*points to cemetary over the hill*

      Maybe that place unless I move before then. Go check out your local cemetary, you're sure to find out where people go after they die.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I'm going in the ground. KevenM dies on page 704.
      • Acirn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2HEY! How about a spoiler warning next time?
    • cocytus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5same place as you, a box in the ground
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Nowhere. You go nowhere when you die. HTH
    • barneytoe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7same place you are, in the ground to become soil :)
    • h0w412d, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8back into where i was before i was born. into nonexistence.
    • drpeppper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8nowhere. there are no golden buildings in the clouds, no virgins. you just die. you turn to dust and maggots eat your flesh. you become part of the soil. that is the cycle of life.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree, there are no virgins....and remember that next time she claims she IS one!
    • fugularity, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8What difference does it make where we go when we die? Do you wonder where everything goes when it dies? What matters is what we do in the short time we have to LIVE.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can know something that is unknowable.