Some people think that physical laws are more powerful than God powers. Therefore they try to 'prove' the bible wrong by saying "what did the animals in noah's ark eat?" "why the lambs weren't eaten by the lions?" Well, perhaps God DIDNT WANT TO, is that possible? I mean, He made the universe, stoping a tiger it's easier.
20 comments
So if God could keep these animals from eating each other, (because he didn't want them to), why didn't he keep the people from sinning, thus eliminating the need for a flood, and thusly an Ark altogether?
Of all the horrible things God could have prevented but didn't, you have him protecting lambs on a boat. Assassinations, wars, disease, murders, torture, nope, God can't be bothered but lambs and lions together in harmony, you bet. If God is omnipotent why was there even a need for a flood? If there was a flood, why didn't the omnipotent God simply create new, perfect people to repopulate the earth?
That's the beauty of religion, NotMe, once it gets its assed kicked in a debate it simply tries arguing it with someone else. Or it just denies that anyone refuted every single point they've ever made or they just deny that anything refuting their groundless claims are acceptable.
Yes, and god could have made us without internal structure and obviously incapable of living without magic. But no, everything had to be all 'looking as though god were an unnecessary hypothesis' (she says in a faux sneering, smarmy voice).
actually Berny , it was 150 days the earth was flooded. (I only know this because I read it last night.)
Also, if God flooded the earth to kill every living thing, what about all the fish and whales and dolphins, etc.? Were they just exempt? Eh eh? And why would god kill innocent animals? What were they doing that was so wicket as to arouse the mighty Wrath of GodTM?
DinDC
Since God is all powerful, why didn't he just have all the evil people disintergrate and leave the good people and animals alone? The only thing I can figure was that it was a massive practical joke on poor old Noah.
So...why the ark, then? He could have just spared two of each animal, and all of Noah's menagerie, so the whole reason for the ark was...what, then?
You can say that if you want, but it pretty much eliminates any claim you may have that a literal reading of Genesis can be considered scientifically valid. In other words, it shows that creationism is useless as a science. Are you sure you want to go there?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
