When the flood was finished, Noah came off the Ark with all his animals, and God told them to "be fruitful and multiply," which meant, of course, that animals should just keep f---ing until they rapidly transformed into a wide variety of new species, as illustrated in the diagram below:You're probably looking at that diagram thinking it looks an awful lot like an animal evolving over millions of years. Um, no. This is a post-flood horse changing over a few thousand years. DUH! It's all explained very clearly in the fine print:
On further reflection, I think the creationists liken the little horse on the left to the Chihuahua and the big horse on the right to the St. Bernard. The problem with this argument is that the St. Bernard come from the Chihuahua. Differing breeds of dogs are like the tips of branches. What Creationists don't want to claim is that they are showing different species or that speciation can occur.
3 comments:
If he wanted horses to be large, graceful animals capable of being ridden by humans, why did he make them so tiny in the first place?
Seems like a hell of a waste of time.
And what the hell was he thinking of when he made the thing that ultimately became the entirely hopeless Dodo Bird?
Wait a minute. Weren't there "beasts of burden" before the flood?
Oh, wait, I get it! Everything, man, animals, plants, was all really, really tiny pre-flood, so it'd all fit on the Ark!
So was everything really, really tiny because God always knew that man would need to be purged, which kinda takes the winds out of the sail of "free will?" Or, did everthing suddenly just get really, really tiny right after God made the decision to purge man? And how long did that take? A couple of years, maybe at most?
Wow, now that's some Intelligent Design!
Actually horses are an example of very BAD evolution (or design). Large lump on tall spindly legs? FAIL! Oxen or camels do much better, they just aren't pretty enough.
I do love the idea of "really really tiny pre-flood" animals :D
Post a Comment