What is Digg?876 Comments
- skjede, on 10/10/2007, -9/+682Am I the only one who isn't concerned with religion but is worried with the concept of land-walking sharks?
- 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.
- tical2756, on 10/10/2007, -44/+398Creationists will explain it the same way they explain everything: "God did it"
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -23/+301"You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with flippin' laser beams attached to their heads..."
- redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -12/+161Yes but could god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? - Homer Simpson (on weed)
- Xopl, on 10/10/2007, -13/+143I hate to break it to you, but those AREN'T FEET.... those are the sharks PENISES. Yes, plural. Sharks have TWO.
From the Wikipedia shark entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark):
"The males have modified pelvic fins which have become a pair of claspers." - ylp07, on 10/10/2007, -17/+138But will it blend?
- h3ndrix, on 10/10/2007, -30/+122You know, I am not a creationist but this whole anti-creationist trend is just as bad fundamentalist reich.
- 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.' " - MadScientist420, on 10/10/2007, -8/+84it's " frickin' " not "flippin' "
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+59I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+59...well, it WAS a new evolutionary branch. Now it's just a dead fish. Way to stop evolution there, guys.
- dan.edwards, on 10/10/2007, -16/+67That's easy... A wizard did it.
- 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?
- speedk0re, on 10/10/2007, -3/+51Candygram
- DJPhoenix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+48I, for one, welcome our new land-walking shark overlords.
- 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.
- arobar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40As noodle scratchers go, that's a dilly of a pickle.
- Crushkilla, on 10/10/2007, -15/+53Few things are more obnoxious than an atheist who shoves their beliefs down everyone's throat. Buried for ***** headline.
- CaspianXth, on 10/10/2007, -8/+43Um, creationists don't deny mutations. This shark with feet proves nothing.
- moofer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37Easy to explain...
On the 14,563,297,387,984,115,982th day, God created monkey fish frog.
http://tinyurl.com/3ch6wx - bretto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32Why is a shark with webbed feet any different than a shark with normal feet? Oh wait...
- 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 - 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. - CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32you? I duno, probably into a casket.
- DrDragun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Best Digg troll name evar
- FeartheKnighted, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31This would actually seem to contradict evolution, as sharks are supposed to be millions of years old. That means they were some of the first animals in the sea, and did not come back into the ocean like manatees and whales are believed to have done . Therefore they would not have the genes for feet and arms and all the things land animals need buried within their DNA.
- DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -17/+39Pretty sure nothing changed with my god after the submission of this article....
- Simon201, on 10/10/2007, -12/+33In the beginning, we were all fish. OK? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog-sqirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a.. monkey-fish-frog.. And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey.. and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
- 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. - GTPilot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22inaccurate. male sharks have 2 reproductive organs. those are not feet.
- profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Which is ironic since paganism is a category of - you guessed it - religions.
- 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.
- 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.
- nattiebug, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20Having majored in marine biology and dissecting many different sharks, that is NOT what a shark's sex organ looks like. And as far as creationists not believing in evolution, go back to third grade, study the bone structure of monkeys to Neanderthals.
Also, a whale with hind feet has been discovered more than a few times. I even got to study the bone structure of one of them. I've never heard of a shark, but it is said that the whale originated from a land wolf/dog like creature with webbed feet. - boredpersonhere, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22Why have to make it a religious debate? Oh, right, for fun.
- CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16are you questioning why we don't just "know" all the knowledge about apes/monkeys?
what? - digitaldivinci, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16'Telegram'
"Oh how love-"
'Landshark' - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15What did scientists do before DNA evidence? Oh yea, lots of stuff.
- Ben174, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15The Landshark is considered the cleverest of all sharks. Unlike the great white shark, which tends to inhabit the waters and harbors and recreational beach areas, the Land Shark may strike at any place, anytime. It is capable of disguising its voice, and generally preys on young, single women.
- 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.
- skjede, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20ramen.
- ward42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19I'm no creationist... but this somehow means that (a) God played no part in creation? Cool discovery, but every animal discovery is not another victory for Darwin.
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17God created atheists?
- lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -13/+26When did religious peole say atheists are devil worshippers?
- doodlebumm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13He swallowed Daffy Duck!!!
- 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..? - phantom_mullet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I agree with Xopl. I have dissected a shark and it looks like this one just has abnormally large and oddly-shaped claspers. For all we know, maybe this little guy just responded to one of those spam emails: "C1ASP€R €NLARG€M€NT 5O% 0FF".
- kevindoc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19ummm....in a box in the dirt? in a little ashy urn? take ur pick
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Land shark!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J65yRvN8DPs -
Show 51 - 100 of 881 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is