Ah yes, who can forget Moses's Ark
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
490 points (95.7% liked)
Greentext
3765 readers
1289 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Anon is a biblical scholar
They do seem to have half-assed it. Maybe they searched something like, "who built the ark in the Bible," and ended up on the page for the Ark of the Covenant by mistake.
Obviously one the Top Men. He's been to that big government warehouse.
It was Jesus who sailed the ark of the covenant down the Nile with his Amen-team comprising of mad Moses, Abraham "faceman" Malone and Mr. T as they fought cobra commander and his army of atheists.
My theory is that, since all animals came by themselves, the dinosaurs were just climate change deniers who didn’t think they need rescuing.
maybe the ones that could hybernate/burrow were more likely to survive?
There are some creationists who deny evolution, say that Noah only needed distinct 'kinds' on the Ark... and then those 'kinds' diversified into everything we have today in I guess a few thousand years.
They basically do not believe in evolution and also posit what is functionally a Cambrian explosion that happens something like 10000 times more quickly.
Then there's the problem of... what would they eat? All the plants are dead. There are only 2 (or 7 pairs at max) of each 'kind' of predator and herbivore... ???
Then there's the heat problem. Apparently sometime in the late 80s or early 90s some scientists got bored and figured out how much water you would actually need to cover the entire earth such that no mountains are above water...
... and what you end up with is so much water, so much energy from it falling to Earth, that basically Earth becomes a multi thousand degree sauna, steam cooking everything.
You cannot argue with someone that believes in an omnipotent power, because that omnipotent power could always just "do" what needs to be done to make it work
Then why bother trying to half-ass explain it with "kinds" and the like? Just say ~~a wizard~~ god did it and leave it at that.
I personally don't bother trying to half-ass explain it
Not to mention that they laud those among their ranks that are the best at ignoring facts and details aka those with the most faith. The more info you give them, the better they can feel about denying it in favor of their beliefs.
these are known as stupid people
If they don't believe in evolution, what makes you think they believe in physics? God can just magically keep the animals from starving and keep the Earth from boiling
There are a number of creationists that have and still come up with fallacious psuedo science of many different kinds to explain how it all actually makes sense ... if half of known science is wrong for reasons, which they insist they can prove.
Yes, many of them resort to basically magic, but there are a lot of well funded apologists who attempt to be taken seriously ot present an argument and vocabulary that seems erudite to ... well, its funny, most of them will admit that they just say things to help reassure those who already believe that their beliefs are justified... even though they will often get into debates with various science educators, as they seemingly believe their own bs is actually legitimate.
Not just that. Through radiometric dating, we have evidence of several billion years worth of nuclear decay. Nuclear decay is constantly releasing heat. It's a completely negligible amount of heat, but if you try cramming all 4.5 billion years worth of it into the single year-long event like creationists want to, it becomes a massive issue. Not to mention the other sources of heat like the water falling down as you brought up, the movement of continents, all the impact events, among other things. We're talking enough heat here to completely vaporize the oceans several hundred times over.
You think Noah had AC on the boat?
Edit: I forgot to mention the reason they need to shove all the heat into a 1-year event, rather than the 6,000-ish years they believe the Earth has been around for (not that it would be much better that way around). As the evidence of billions of years worth of nuclear decay is undeniable, Young Earth Creationists need some event to rapidly accelerate the decay by a factor of at least several hundred thousand times. And many of them say the flood caused it.
… it was water cooled 😎
Fyi, creationists openly believe in "micro evolution" (i think thats whay they call it). Basically they do belive that species can change and adapt over time through the generations, they just dont believe that evolution can create new species given enough time.
Basically they have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that they have purposely created to fit their own presuppositions.
And how did kangaroos go back to Australia from Egypt? 🤣
This is how you make Jehovah's witnesses go away: ask them.
If you dropped the entirety of the Ice moon of Europa on Earth, a moon entirely composed of ice as far as we know, still wouldn't contain enough water to cover the entire Earth, not even close.
Also if you did somehow come up with all of the water, and somehow also it went away later, all the sea creatures which presumably Noah didn't bother with, because they never mentioned in the Bible, would die due to the unimaginable increase in pressure that would result from all that water being dropped on Earth.
Why did you censor that?
The censoring wasn't me.
Because it's a slur and it should be.
Where do you think we are? We're in a 4chan screenshot community.
That's like being mad that you saw poop in a scat fetish forum.
Still have to follow the instance rules.
The sidebar literally has no rules in it except to say that if you are offended by things that are posted here you are the one that's a problem.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
This is one of sh.It just.works rules, not this specific community itself
A screenshot of the word, how to buy someone else, is not bigotry.
I tend to agree, but I still feel it’s a matter of interpretation. I’m of the opinion that censoring bad words is silly but I don’t blame people for doing it when it’s a slur.
Blame their parents.
So hate is ok depending on where you are?
You are not the one saying it, so you dont have to feel bad for posting it.
Its like showing a picture of a nazi with swastika tattoos. You want to show people what a piece of shit they are, so you wouldnt censor that.
Its like preserving historical texts but removing anything you find offensive, there is no point in doing that.
If you do insist get offended by things other people say we're never going to get anywhere. It's not an okay thing to say but you're not the one saying it so it's fine.
It's only offensive to say it to someone, not offensive to acknowledge the word exists and is said by other people. Otherwise the news couldn't report on offensive things people did.
What needs to happen here is an injection of maturity into the conversation. You took effort to censor something that didn't need to be censored and are now arguing about it even though people are telling you it doesn't need to be censored.
I didn't censor anything. I am not the op and point of fact it would be censored on the news. And I'm so glad that you, the Arbiter of all things right and wrong and good and moral in the world, can sit here and tell me what does in fact need to be censored and when.
Hang on, where the hell do you get off claiming that I'm the one telling people how to behave, when you're the one advocating for censoring content that was not previously censored?
You're taking action to modify content. You're the one making the decision to censor a content instead of simply copying something as it already exists. By claiming that it should be censored, you are actively making a decision based on your personal morals. Would it not be better to simply display the content as it originally existed.
The media blur out this stuff out is because snowflakes like you would complain otherwise. But we're not the news over here, and we're not going to get shut down.
the downvotes are saddening. it IS a slur and i don't see a problem in censoring slurs.
on the other hand, i wouldn't censor words like "fuck" since it's a versatile expletive and there's no inherent hatred.
Ya, some people really don't see an issue and that in of itself is an issue.
Godjaks are my favourite /int/ shit
Getting two of every microscopic organism must have been especially tricky.
Good job it was just animals then
Bad job there are microscopic animals.
But not every microscopic organism is an animal
Yes, he can leave those ones, as well as any that can survive in seawater. Still leaves a lot of them left to collect, though!
Also, why just the animals and not plants and fungi etc.?
Also tardigrades. How the fuck was ~~Moses~~ Noah supposed to get his hands on two tardigrades?
Moses didn't, that was Noah.
Good question on the plants and fungi.
I think tardigrades are pretty tough though so probably he knew they'd be alright.