No. 118 (essentialsaltes) wrote,
No. 118

Today's adventures in creationist logic

In a discussion on the Flood of Noah, and whether there is physical evidence of it. Obviously there is evidence of floods, but to be the Flood of Noah, it would seem to involve, in my words, "a flood that kills all the animals on earth, apart from Noah, his immediate family, and any other animals he saved."

Creationist: The evidence shows that Noah's flood did not kill all the animals on earth, so your [sic] dealing with a false premise.

Me: wat

Creationist: The only correct premise is to state that ALL animals on Earth that had the "breath of life in its nostrils died." The animals on the earth that did NOT have the BREATH of life did not die. In the Hebrew the words here are: "ruwach" and "naphach".If you do not understand the meaning of those two Hebrew blah bla-blah blah blahhh....

Me: Which animals on earth were spared, apart from those on the ark?

Creationist: I am pretty sure that the Kangaroo in Australia were spared and the Native American Indian in America. Because neither one of them had the breath of life.

Me (silently to myself): please be a Poe, because I think you've just said that Native Americans don't have souls.
Tags: insanity, religion, science, whitebutnotnarrow

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded