1.4k
u/Casual_Deviant Sep 13 '26 edited Sep 13 '26
Hope you guys enjoy. I’ve been submitting cartoons to the New Yorker for about 2 years now and they just recently published my first one (they passed on this one, but it did find a home elsewhere).
For more of my cartoons, come stop by my subreddit: r/BummerParty
167
u/jakmano Sep 13 '26
Nice, I just saw this in this week's Private Eye.
87
u/Casual_Deviant Sep 13 '26
I’ve sold a few to them this year! A couple I wasn’t even expecting to sell anywhere, so that’s been a nice surprise
43
54
u/Simple-Wrangler-9909 Sep 13 '26
There's an old joke that the caption on practically every New Yorker cartoon can be replaced by the phrase "Christ, what an asshole" without reducing its comedic value
As a New Yorker published cartoonist how do you feel about that joke and do you think it applies to your work
16
3
6
7
2
u/carmium Sep 13 '26
Congratulations on the NY win. I know they have a very hard-to-define quiet humour requirement that is hard to satisfy.
2
1
1.1k
u/ErikT738 Sep 13 '26
Don't forget all the freshwater fish that must have been on board.
251
u/CptnMayo Sep 13 '26
Saltwater, flood was fresh, or is fresh, correct?
Or which part of the falicy is up for "debate?"
324
u/ErikT738 Sep 13 '26
Look, I don't know what kind of water the flood was but half the fishes were fucked either way.
132
u/chryseusAquila Sep 13 '26
no, stupid. God obviously gave the fish scooba gear.
76
u/Amaegith Sep 13 '26
Shame he didn't give them SCUBA gear though...
→ More replies (7)7
u/thewoogier Sep 13 '26
Are you for scuba?
6
u/enadiz_reccos Sep 13 '26
If I am not for scuba, then what's this all been about? What am I working toward?
10
Sep 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)32
→ More replies (1)4
u/MrSyaoranLi Sep 13 '26
Scooba dooby doo
2
u/Sancticide Sep 14 '26
Maybe that's how all the animals didn't eat each other? Scooby snacks and fat doobies.
Bear hugging a salmon Like, I know I should eat l totally eat you, but I LOVE YOU, man...I fuckin love you.
13
u/Patroklus42 Sep 13 '26
I would assume all of them would be kind of fucked, since the mix would be somewhere between salt and fresh water. Plus torrential downpour that adds several times the amount of water on earth would drastically change the pressure and light level of their habitat, and fill the oceans with sediment. Probably change the temps as well.
→ More replies (2)9
u/The_Tooter_Snooter Sep 13 '26
Not to mention, the amount of evaporation it would take to then drain these oceans in a few days or weeks would mean you would drown trying to breathe the air
→ More replies (1)5
u/Patroklus42 Sep 14 '26
Creationists like to say the earth opened up and water flowed into it.
Then just disappeared or something, I guess
6
u/Hoobleton Sep 14 '26
It is staggering to me that there are people that think the story of Noah's Ark is a real event that literally happened. It's like if someone told me that they thought Little Red Riding Hood is true.
8
u/Miqo_Nekomancer Sep 13 '26
If it was rain then it would mean all of the water turned brackish, killing basically everything not evolved to live in brackish water.
3
u/Sancticide Sep 14 '26
But wouldn't all the animals need to be in some magical stasis anyway, to prevent the food chain from, y'know, working as intended?
"Well, we've got two lions and here are two zebr- fuck... son, go find some more zebras. Look, I don't know WHERE! Figure some shit out. I built a massive ship larger than the world will see for thousands of years, OK? You can find me some more zebras. Aaaand now we need more bugs. Great. And lizards. I feel like a guy rolling a boulder constantly up a hill, Wait, that's the wrong mythology. My bad."
1
u/kostoast Sep 15 '26
All the fish I’m pretty sure though right? At some point it just would’ve been a brackish death trap.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ArenSteele 29d ago
If the flood was a real event, it would have been a rain based flood between the Tigress and Euphrates river basins, and mostly fresh water.
The rest of the world would have been unaffected by the massive regional flood
11
u/psychicesp Sep 13 '26
Would have been a little brackish. Not salty enough for saltwater fish, probably too salty for freshwater fish
11
2
1
1
u/Vegetable_Net_6354 Sep 14 '26
Ummmm aCtUaLlY the rain drops would have accumulated over such a long time that all the fish would have acclimated 🤓☝️
26
u/Johnny_Banana18 Sep 13 '26
I think creationist believe that all modern fish “evolved” from the fish in water during the flood. Same with the animals, that they had different “kinds” and after the flood the animals rapidly underwent evolution.
None of this is in the bible btw, it’s basically fundy fanfiction.
27
u/ensalys Sep 13 '26
I think creationist believe that all modern fish “evolved” from the fish in water during the flood.
Which is absolutely the funniest thing I've heard from them. They claim evolution as we know it is ridiculous, and we're dumb for believing it, but then they claim some kind of mega evolution where all the species of beetles evolved in about 4000 years.
3
u/Retro_Gamer33 Sep 13 '26
I've seen some of their theories, some are that the water had "pockets" of fresh vs salt water the fish stayed in
2
u/yawa_worht_34 Sep 13 '26
I grew up in a church not far outside the creation museum in Kentucky. They had Ken Hamm come guest speak multiples times a year.
The gist of their argument was that species can evolve but never into another species. For example, dogs can evolve into other forms of dogs, but a dog could never evolve into a primate.
Stupid fucking logic.
5
1
2
1
719
u/ZincHead Sep 13 '26
25% of all know species are beetles. If God exists, he is most likely a beetle.
253
u/LifeIsProbablyMadeUp Sep 13 '26
Imagine being a god beetle and creating the perfect world for your creatures and somehow humans happen
101
u/Al3jandr0 Sep 13 '26
Tbf, humans build some pretty sweet beetle shelters without even meaning to
102
12
u/Cessnaporsche01 Sep 13 '26
Everybody hates Tiktaalik. Fuckass fish commits the original sin of bringing bones onto dry land and now I have to pay taxes and God's perfect world is in shambles
15
2
u/SeventhOblivion Sep 14 '26
Beetle God may actually be the best explanation for his treatment of humans in the Abrahamic religions.
16
33
u/Soup-a-doopah Sep 13 '26
But do not all life forms yearn to become crabs?
I, for one, welcome our new crustacean diety. So pinch any more of this "beetle god" nonsense.
37
12
1
u/Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ Sep 13 '26
No, pretty much just the things that already looked a lot like crabs yearn to be crabs.
10
u/cmetz90 Sep 13 '26
There are significantly more species of beetles than there are species of all vertebrates
2
5
u/FlatWhiteShark Sep 13 '26
"God has an inordinate fondness for beetles and stars."
--J.B.S. Haldane
3
3
u/Which_Draft4129 Sep 14 '26
ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE RIGHT? ALL HAIL KEPRI, THE DUNG BEETLE GOD OF THE SUN!
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/HeckItsDrowsyFrog Sep 13 '26
Yeah i noticed the fact that there are so many more beetles than any other species because I used to go to literally random Wikipedia articles and beetle species weren't that uncommon
1
1
1
→ More replies (6)1
265
u/Gredelston Sep 13 '26
Oh I learned about this one! I think it's interesting to learn about how people rationalize their crazy beliefs.
The Bible doesn't talk about two of every species. Species is a scientist word. It talks about two of every kind of animal. What you and I call a species, creationists consider to be natural variation within the kind, not unlike different breeds of dog. So for example lions and cheetahs are different variations of the cat kind, and likewise all the beetles are just variations of the locust kind. So Noah just brought two locusts, and their reproduction led to all our beetles.
Source: My buddy went to the Creationist Museum in Kentucky.
71
u/Patroklus42 Sep 13 '26
I follow a lot of creationist content, and there isn't actually a solid definition for what a "kind" is, or a mechanism for how kinds split into all the variation we see today, especially if you are using a YEC model.
Creationist ideas aren't created based on observation. They usually have a problem, like the fact that all species physically could not have fit on any sort of boat, and they ask themselves "what would make this possible," then they accept whatever they hypothesize as fact. In this case, the idea of kinds leads to several other problems, like how exactly did the diversity we see today evolve from kinds, or how genetic bottlenecks were avoided, etc. etc. Creationists aren't scientists though, so they aren't seriously interested in exploring their own theories beyond the base explanation
I also wouldnt go so far as to say "the Bible says this." The Bible probably meant something closer to species, or what the people who wrote it would have thought of as a species, and the idea of "kinds" is a new interpretation exclusive to post-Darwin apologism
40
u/Darkwr4ith Sep 13 '26
The real problem I always find with these debates is no one mentions what happens after the animals climb off the ark. What do the predators eat for the next several years while the herbivores repopulate? Have you seen an area after a flood? The plants and trees are devastated. Those plants were under water for 40 days. So what are the herbivores going to eat in that time?
I think Noah's ark completely falls apart when you are trying to piece together the aftermath.
24
u/Notasurgeon Sep 13 '26
I was raised as a young-Earth creationist. Every adult in my life up through the age of 20 or so was a young-Earth creationist. These people are happy to use scientific explanations when it suits them, but they aren’t looking for or expecting a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for everything. If God can magically get all the “kinds” of animals on a boat then magically flood the Earth with water for over a month before magically draining it away, what’s a little more magic to redistribute the animals while keeping them fed and healthy afterwards?
4
u/Azrael11 Sep 14 '26
Like manna from heaven in Exodus, maybe it was raining wildebeest for the lions.
34
u/Patroklus42 Sep 13 '26
Or how do you feed them on the ark. Or how do you prevent death from natural causes. The version that has 7 of every kind helps with this, but also makes the mass and space problem worse.
I agree, it's the kind of story that only makes sense when you have zero biological knowledge and "every species" is limited to every distinct animal whatever person wrote it had seen. It also seems to imply a flat earth model, as the "firmament" that held the waters up always seems to appear in those, though I'm not sure if that was the intention
32
u/Darkwr4ith Sep 13 '26
The argument you'll hear a lot of theologians bring forth to blanket cover any of these is "God stopped that from happening. God kept the animals alive."
Then why didn't God just remake all the animals after he wiped the slate clean? The argument about saving animals from dying would fall apart because the flood is killing thousands of other ones.
But I completely agree, any one with an ounce of scientific knowledge that has given all this more than a minute's thought would come to the same conclusion. It's a fabricated story.
16
u/Patroklus42 Sep 13 '26
Yeah, unfortunately when you appeal to miracles you start to run into theological inconsistenties, as you said. Many creationists do try to avoid appealing to them as a result, but that means they end up in an uncomfortable limbo of nitpicking better science without any clear model of their own
8
u/xteve Sep 13 '26
"Picking and choosing" within the Bible is widely denigrated as an inferior practice among believers. But the book is not even internally consistent, even before it fails to comport with known reality. Nitpicking is basic Christianity, and it accounts for the enormous proliferation of churches that all read the same book differently.
2
u/brickmaster32000 Sep 14 '26
Then why didn't God just remake all the animals after he wiped the slate clean?
Because he didn't feel like it. It is all nonsense but that isn't really something you can claim breaks the logic because you can't prove that God would have to act in any given way.
12
u/ensalys Sep 13 '26
Those plants were under water for 40 days.
Not that it matter all that much as it's all bullshit, and after 40 days everything would be dead anyway, but the situation is worse than that. 40 Days is the period for which it rained. It was on the first day of the 10th month that the water had receded enough for the tops of the mountains to become visible.
5
u/FrenchFryCattaneo Sep 13 '26
The only way you can possibly explain it as being a real even is, "God did a bunch of things behind the scenes to make it possible".
4
u/jacobolus Sep 14 '26 edited Sep 14 '26
Or you can explain it as being based on the legendary story of a Sumerian king from a city in ancient Iraq who loaded a bunch of people, livestock, and seeds on a boat and managed to outlast a massive flood c. 2900 BC. The king was probably real, and the flood was real (there is extant physical evidence of it), but we have no way of testing other details of the story. Whoever was writing the material that eventually became the Hebrew Bible thought it was a cool story and tossed it in, with significant embellishment.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
7
u/NilocKhan Sep 13 '26
To be fair there isn't a solid definition for what makes a species in biology either. There's lots of different species concepts
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
u/Justredditin Sep 14 '26
If someone were to go to "The Ark Experience" or w.e that re-creation is called, you would... well should, instantly know that story is baloney. You should be disappointed and questioning life, not happy and reinforcing a fairy tale. It is just so blatantly obvious.
26
u/lolol_nsfw Sep 13 '26
So Noah just brought two locusts, and their reproduction led to all our beetles.
Careful, that's starting to sound a little evolution-y 👀
5
u/dj92wa Sep 13 '26
Also across an incredibly accelerated amount of time. Begs the questions why we don’t see changes happening across species right now. It’d be noticeable day-to-day. Rapid evolution creates immense competition, which in turn drive evolution as each species tries to find its specialty. Lmao that museum is such a joke. They have an exhibit dedicated to explaining that the earth is only 2k years old or whatever due to how some airplane sunk in ice.
32
u/Emadec Sep 13 '26
Makes sense, with all that wacky incest you’d get some funky genetics going real fast /s
3
u/Deaffin Sep 13 '26
Incest wasn't patched in til later, in order to "set" the species in place after the explosion of diversity.
→ More replies (1)13
u/KPplumbingBob Sep 13 '26
It's honestly insane how many people in this day and age believe this story in literal sense. On the one hand at least they are more consistent following their book but on the other the mental gymnastics required to actually present it like something that has actually happened is really something else. You have these YECs claiming they only took one of each "kind", not all species. Basically saying the evolution is happenning at insane speed but still insisting there are some hardcoded limits and one "kind" cannot become another.
7
u/FlirtyFluffyFox Sep 13 '26
On the one hand at least they are more consistent following their book
Its literally impossible. Theology trying to reckon with all the inconsistent rules in the Bible is practically it's own branch of morality (except it's based on stories instead of a rationally deduced philosophy).
They basically selectively toss some laws into the "meant for the people of this region/caste/race/era and put others in the "true law" category based often in which industry is sponsoring which bishops or which cultures they are trying to convert.
2
3
u/SonicFlash01 Sep 13 '26
Didn't the Bible also say 7 pairs of some species?
5
u/StopReadingMyUser Sep 13 '26
7 of certain clean animals as these would be used for sacrifices, and later food.
3
u/Periwinkleditor Sep 13 '26
"Kind" is great because they can make it be whatever level of evolution is convenient in the moment. Simultaneously broad enough to fit on a relatively tiny boat but also somehow exploding magically into all the species variation we have in a few thousand years, at rates that would require superspeed evolution on a level comparable to Pokemon.
3
u/angrysunbird Sep 13 '26
Which is really funny because the anti evolution people are advocating for a more extreme form of evolution than even scientists argue for to explain the huge number of species.
5
u/StopReadingMyUser Sep 13 '26
It's funny because I don't think they took insects on the boat at all. Not sure what the museum thinks though.
The Bible talks about Noah taking "living" things, and what is alive in the biblical sense is very different to what we may consider alive. It's usually an and/or situation of whether the creature has blood, breath in it's nostrils, or a soul. Something like grass or trees would not qualify for example, and I don't think insects would either as there anatomy is far different to be considered bleeding/breathing creatures.
They'd more than likely be fine anyway. If the world was flooded, there may not be land, but they're definitely would be plenty of floating debris for a while.
6
u/megamoze Sep 13 '26
I mean, none of this happened so it doesn't really matter. It's like trying to figure out the scientific reasons for why Excalibur stayed in the rock for everyone but Arthur. It's a fairy tale.
2
u/StopReadingMyUser Sep 13 '26
I think it's fun to think about, but that's just me.
→ More replies (5)3
u/jpb225 Sep 13 '26
If the entire earth were violently flooded, no, the bugs would not have been "fine" lol. Bugs still need air to breathe, food to eat, and all sorts of other environmental parameters particular to each species.
There's zero way to reconcile the Noah's ark myth with reality, it was either fully magic or it didn't happen. The earth today is just not compatible with that event being part of its history, full stop.
1
u/StopReadingMyUser Sep 13 '26
I mean that's fine, I'm just talking about a specific part of the post I found interesting.
→ More replies (5)1
u/unktrial Sep 13 '26
Well, the definition of what Noah considers alive might not be relevant to the situation. Without evolution to make new species, pretty much everything that can't live underwater for a month has to be on the boat, or else they shouldn't exist.
So stuff like rock plants needs to be on the boat too, no matter if Noah considered it alive or not.
2
u/thewoogier Sep 13 '26
Bill Nye had a great response to this in his debate with Ken Ham. If that's what creationists want to believe, then they believe in speciation by evolution to an insane degree, something which they normally deny ("we believe in micro evolution not macro evolution" type shit). If they only took 7000 "kinds" of animals on board, then over the next 4000 years 11 species would have had to evolved per day in order to get the 16 million species we have on earth today.
1
u/sixfourbit Sep 13 '26
I imagine Noah didn't bring any bats either as according to the Bible they're of the bird kind.
1
u/Ao_Kiseki Sep 13 '26
I grew up young earth creationist and even as an indoctrinated child I never understood how this is different from evolution lol. If anything it's even more extreme than the real theory claims, since you're talking about species differentiating from a small set of "kinds" into the biodiversity we see today in a couple thousand years.
"Kinds" adapting and changing like that is literally the definition of evolution. It wasn't until I deconverted thay I realized all these people are just stupid and don't know what evolution actually is.
1
u/mofojr Sep 13 '26
I would love to be able to go back in time to hear the first time this story was told.
My understanding is that many scholars believe early Torah/Old Testaments stories started verbally before writing and are much older than most people think.
Obviously Noah is a way for humans to figure out where we came from and why many species are so similar and how there was a reset after Adam and Eve. And it’s crazy that it MIGHT be a holdover story of memory when the earth was a larger ocean a looooong time ago. Adam and Eve story is probably not even as old as Noah’s but I don’t know enough. Creation myths are much easier to invent than a fucking reset button on life.
1
u/mofojr Sep 13 '26
I would love to be able to go back in time to hear the first time this story was told.
My understanding is that many scholars believe early Torah/Old Testaments stories started verbally before writing and are much older than most people think.
Obviously Noah is a way for humans to figure out where we came from and why many species are so similar and how there was a reset after Adam and Eve. And it’s crazy that it MIGHT be a holdover story of memory when the earth was a larger ocean a looooong time ago. Adam and Eve story is probably not even as old as Noah’s but I don’t know enough. Creation myths are much easier to invent than a fucking reset button on life.
Or is it that they are both creation myths, but someone decided to put them in a particular order at some point!?
I also want to know what stories have been lost
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Banterz0ne 27d ago
Right, so in their view why are there so many species of dog in the world?
God created everything. Then only two of each group were saved, so only one breed of dog remains. There's no such thing as evolution... So how do we have so many dog breeds?
61
27
u/Periwinkleditor Sep 13 '26
"You remembered to bring termites, right?"
"Of course!"
"I have some bad news."
3
66
u/_Echoes_ Sep 13 '26
Noah's gut bacteria must have been really healthy with all the microorganisms as well. They outweigh humanity by mass across the planet after all.
16
1
33
u/RhapsodyofMagic Sep 13 '26
I'm more impressed by him discovering Australia and bringing their native species then taking them all the way back. Same with polar bears and penguins. Must have been a hell of a trip for a man who was... [checks notes] 600 years old.
(This isn't taking into account that for the whole Earth to flood he'd need oxygen to survive that high up but they were made tougher back then)
9
u/SuddenlyFondling Sep 13 '26 edited Sep 13 '26
I forget if it's in the bible as a version of the flood narrative, or just an interpretation some people have, but I've seen it opined that the animals "were led to noah and came to him by god's will" rather than him having to go out and gather them all.
and because this is /r/funny I need to say, that just makes me picture a couple of sloths swimming across the ocean - slowly - for the ten-plus years it'd take sloths to migrate from south america to the ancient holy land. There's a madagascar/ice age type wacky CGI animals film in that.
Also the oxygen is the least of his problems given the various other problems of geology, physics, chemistry, and possible radiology that noah would face. A YEC Flood Literalist model requires vastly more water than there is on earth, the creation of the entire geological column top to bottom, and some other problems, most of which are unsurvivable by the boat. Depending on which YEC you ask (there are opposing camps), noah may well die as the total heat released by the geological action going on under the flood cooks the ocean and everything in and on it, ark included.
5
u/Emadec Sep 13 '26
I think at that point in time there was still one large landmass in the story
But yeah, once you get into the logistics of it... it gets fun!
2
u/jpb225 Sep 13 '26
Well, in the story the earth is flat with a hard dome over it holding up the "waters above", and god opened the windows lol.
I don't think I've heard any apologists suggest that the continents were all together that recently, but dang, pangea to the current state in 4,000 years is some speedy drift! Pretty sure they usually say sea levels were lower at some point and more land bridges existed.
→ More replies (1)1
u/m2ilosz Sep 14 '26
No, it doesn't say anything about Earth being flat.
The waters being "above"? We know the Earth is round and we still say "above"
2
u/jpb225 29d ago
In the Hebrew creation myths, Yahweh puts a hard dome, the "firmament," over the earth to separate the waters above from the waters below. It's later described as being hard, like a cast metal mirror, while the earth below is pressed out like clay under a seal, with edges ("skirts"), and set upon a foundation.
Given that this plain reading of the text matches everything about the cosmology of the time, how would you come to the conclusion that the story is told with a spherical earth? Especially when the flood story itself talks about the water coming from the windows in the sky?
You don't have to twist the book into something with a modern understanding of the universe. It was written by people who thought the earth was flat with a dome, so when it talks about the earth it's represented that way. It's not like you can make a global flood work from a physics standpoint in any event, so I don't know why we'd try to read in a spherical earth.
→ More replies (1)6
u/FrenchFryCattaneo Sep 13 '26
If the entire planet were to flood that would just push all the air up so it would maintain the same density if you were at sea level. Like the whole atmosphere would expand outwards (which I'm sure would have no negative effects lol)
1
2
u/Android19samus 29d ago
Had to take the boat for a practice run around the world before the big event, I guess.
52
u/sunny0_0 Sep 13 '26
Why didn't God review the story before it was published? I'm sure he would have found this glaring omission.
24
u/rmnobre Sep 13 '26
Too long, didn't read. Publish anyways. Who cares.
-God, circa beginning
→ More replies (1)5
u/Exemus Sep 13 '26
The story if Noah's Ark was clearly written by someone who could name like 15-20 animals and be like "yeah, I think that's about all of them"
17
5
u/psychicesp Sep 13 '26
There were requirements to be Ark-worthy. One was nostrils, so no bugs. Whales though
8
u/mrbananas Sep 13 '26
Didn't someone once do the math and calculate that if you took two of each insect species then the combined weight of insect biomass alone would be enough to sink the Ark
10
u/PurpleGemsc Sep 13 '26
Friendly reminder 25% of ALL SPECIES are beetles
6
u/madguyO1 Sep 13 '26
all described species*, no one is taking their time to categorise the billions of marginally different microorganisms or pretty much most of aquatic life
5
6
u/Muslim_Wookie Sep 13 '26
Hahahaha omg as an Aussie this hits so hard.
Many days I have ~100 flies trying to land on my eyes for water, all day.
8
u/jethroguardian Sep 13 '26
This message brought to you by the tourism board of Everywhere-Not-Australia.
5
u/skotcgfl Sep 13 '26
I would like to unread that please.
2
u/Muslim_Wookie Sep 14 '26
Yeah it fucking sucks. You wear an all encompassing head net to avoid it but then somehow one still gets in and now you're trapped in the net with it.
3
u/spinz89 Sep 13 '26
And the issues inbreeding causes and that there's no way Noah lived to be 950 years old.
1
u/Android19samus 29d ago
Nah turns out if you just do inbreeding enough then people start to live forever.
7
u/Popular_Wrangler9422 Sep 13 '26
This is actually hilarious as someone from louisiana. im banned in comics for having an opinion so thanks for posting here where funs still allowed.
6
u/mynewusernamedodgers Sep 13 '26
Could have left mosquitos off. Thanks Jesus or Noah or whatever
1
u/Mirenithil Sep 13 '26
Mhm. I heard a joke that Noah really should have squashed those two mosquitoes.
4
u/MLCarter1976 Sep 13 '26
How many animals had to be brought on board to be food for others like lions would need food and wolves would need food too.
2
u/Slartibartfast39 Sep 13 '26
Fight like you're the third Pseudomelieria Argentina getting on the arc and it's starting to rain.
2
u/FaithlessnessThin359 Sep 13 '26
Not to mention all those aquariums for the saltwater fish and corals that would have died from the massive influx of freshwater.
Too bad the Bible didn’t have instructions on how to make a protein skimmer out of gopher wood and pitch.
2
u/VaelinX Sep 13 '26
How many humans did Noah have to host all human parasites? That's one anglei never thought of until now.
2
4
u/Seligas Sep 13 '26
I'll answer as a typical evangelical creationist: No, no. You see, god created animal "kinds", like the dog kind or the cat kind. So only one of each kind needed to be on the boat to then later become all the other species.
So there were only two bug "kinds" present that then later became the other millions of species of bugs. Also evolution doesn't exist. 🤡
I wish I was making this up.
1
u/naruhinamoonkissplz Sep 14 '26
Liligers (look that one up) make this MUCH LESS of a "joke" than you'd wish it was.
3
2
3
u/ChocoPuddingCup Sep 13 '26
Out of every story in the bible; every miracle, every supernatural event, every magical-seeming scenario, the flood myth is the easiest to disprove.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
2
u/genreprank Sep 13 '26
Most Creationists gave up denying that dinosaurs existed.
Now they say the flood is where the fossils came from.
And they believe there were dinosaurs on the ark. They just didn't do too well afterwards
→ More replies (5)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ballistic_86 Sep 13 '26
Kind of amazing we can see catastrophic floods that, in ancient times, would appear to wipe out the entire world, and people can’t put the flood story and real floods together.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Roguescholar74 Sep 15 '26
Not as many as worms. If you are an animal on this planet there’s an 80% chance you’re a roundworm.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 13 '26
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.