Updated every weekday.         Please vote!    



I wish I were making this up, but Genesis 8:21 actually says that the Lord smelled the "sweet savor" of the burning carcasses. Yup, pure and holy is he!

It would have taken several days of constant killing and burning to fry up one of every clean animal. I guess it's all for the best though, since they would have starved to death anyway. Once again, the bible ignores the problems with feeding. Millions of animals have been released on the Earth, but nearly all plant life has been terminated thanks to the theological temper tantrum that terrorized the terrain. Even if Noah kept a specimen of every plant on the ark, it would take many years of growing before they would be good for food. And what about all those carnivores? Animal gestation periods are far too long to build up a stock of prey for them to eat.

I've been holding off on this Creationist argument for a long time now, but it's time to address it. The argument goes like this: While it's true that everything about the ark defies all known forms of science and technology, this is God we're talking about; he can do anything! God could have built the ark for Noah, God could have kept the ark safe and stable through the rains, God could have kept the animals from killing each other on the ark, could have fed them, could have magically created and obliterated the water, could have eliminated all of the evidence of the flood, etc. God could have done it all!

To which I can only ask, then what was the point? If God did everything for Noah, then why did he bother with all the ceremony and showmanship? Why didn't he just stop the hearts of every evil person? Why didn't he just blink them out of existence? Why did he have to be a sadist and kill every animal on Earth? Why kill every plant? Why didn't he have the Magratheans build him Earth version 2.0, fill it with copies of all the plants and animals, stick Noah and his family on it, and Death Star the old one? If God did everything for Noah, then this entire story is utterly pointless!



! writes:


I must agree. It's like having a giant Deus Ex Machina at your disposal, but only 1 person can bother to turn the machine on, and never bothers to.

Honestly, God. If you wanted (starving,) burning animal flesh why didn't you just burn an animal yourself instead of starving & killing everything then wiping out what could be 1 of the last few of that species?

Seriously, someone this stupid, oblivious, lazy, selfish, malicious, all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent can't exist or be called "benevolent".

(Also, hooray, I didn't screw up my posting!! :D )

Ray writes:



just me writes:


Doesn't this creationist explanation point out that god didn't use the optimal path, hence being irrational, hence not being perfect - ergo not a god?

Anyway ... I just watched a few Firefly episodes again and came across this nice quote from River:
"Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense. /.../
So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem. /.../
We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


just me: LOVE Firefly!

And when Creationist see something that is illogical or unscientific in the bible, they don't admit defeat, they simply claim that the fault lies in logic or science. In their eyes, the bible can't possible be wrong, so the fault must lie in us humans.

Take a look at the second-to-last question in this ultra-conservative Christian FAQ:

Mr-know-it-all writes:


So, can we assume Noah did this immediately after disembarking? And that, by burning one of each "clean" animal, he effectively extinguished them, and now Noah and his family will have to become vegans?

Bobsbert writes:


Well, Mr-know-it-all, there were seven pairs of clean beasts on the arc. Or God could have changed the rules on what's clean and what's not, once the clean beasts became extinct.

Ladyofthemasque writes:


*psssst, TAG, altar (holy platform), not alter (to change in some manner)*

(Proof that even while proving the fallibility of the Bible, mistakes can creep in without noticing them...)

TBman256 writes:


here's a youtube miniseries about the flood.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Doh! At least it's not your/you're! ...fixed.

ziggy-boogy-doo writes:


if he killed one of every clean animal left on earth, how the hell were they supposed to repopulate it? even if they try REALLY HARD it's impossible to impregnate yourself.:|no

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Because Noah took 7 pairs of the clean animals, so there were some to spare... which is true only if you don't understand genetics, chromosomes, and population issues.

Kim writes:


Well.... It's not totally impossible to impregnate yourself; there is such a thing as parthenogenesis, but I don't think you can do it voluntarily. It just happens occasionally. But it only produces females in mammals, and then you're back to the same problem if you didn't save any males. (Among birds, parthenogenesis only produces males because in birds the genetics are reversed and XX is male.)
I find genetics fascinating.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Good point Kim. Parthenogenesis is a possibility in lesser complex organisms, although, it is extremely rare in mammals. So rare, that it has never been witnessed outside of a laboratory, and even then, the offspring is rarely stable. I doubt Noah would have figured it out being plastered all the time. ;-)

Paul writes:


Wow. I just wrote a Facebook comment about Noah's ark today, including something spookily similar to your "creationist argument" in the last two paragraphs. Then mere hours later I click Next to continue browsing your archive, and encounter this page!
The FSM works in delicious ways...


Oh the irony!