Jump to content

the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Learned about the ark stuff a couple of weeks ago when we took a neighbor to a wedding.  Her daughter and family planned a trip over there just to go see the ark.  The website for that thing is something else.

1902-ThinkBigger_2000x1085.jpg

What's the rule for black jack insurance on this one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Learned about the ark stuff a couple of weeks ago when we took a neighbor to a wedding.  Her daughter and family planned a trip over there just to go see the ark.  The website for that thing is something else.

1902-ThinkBigger_2000x1085.jpg

Definitely looks like it could hold two of every animal, including dinosaurs. I'm sold!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Do you really want to wake up missing a kidney or with a rabbit boilng on the stove top?

Would it be my kids' rabbit?  And could I ditch it before they got home and maybe do something to the fence to make them think it got out, like rub some fur on the boards around a hole in the fence I created?

Just Asking GIF by ABC Network

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I'm honestly at a loss as to how people believe this shit.

People need something to believe in/want something to explain their lot in life.  It's tapping into the same dynamic that the qanon stuff and other conspiracy stuff does.

4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

I'm of the belief that all those old testament stories are allegories and not literal

Some are actually really good life lessons for folks thousands of years ago who didn't understand things like trichinosis.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

On the bright side, if he goes to prison, he'll FINALLY be able to suck all that dick he's secretly been craving.

NTTAWWT.  I just hate the self-loathing closeted gays who take out their frustration by being shitty to everyone else.  Just suck the dicks already, and be happy with yourself.

image.gif.3990f04bbb3579ba5451244e25c3c2f4.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

A question brought up about the ark I had never pondered:  what did all the predators eat when they got off the ark (nevermind whilst on the ark). Like, if they ate one animal, boom, no more of that animal!  

Obviously they ate all the dinosaurs 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:
A question brought up about the ark I had never pondered:  what did all the predators eat when they got off the ark (nevermind whilst on the ark). Like, if they ate one animal, boom, no more of that animal!  

Something about "teaching them to fish and feeding them for a lifetime"

Yeah, but what about the Mosasaurus and Megalodon and the others? Why didn't all of those creatures survive a global flood?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

A question brought up about the ark I had never pondered:  what did all the predators eat when they got off the ark (nevermind whilst on the ark). Like, if they ate one animal, boom, no more of that animal!  

That's what's bothering you?? Dude, who did Noah and Moses fuck to repopulate the world? We're all inbred my man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, but what about the Mosasaurus and Megalodon and the others? Why didn't all of those creatures survive a global flood?  

Low saline content from dilution?

these things happen when you use your god powers to create rain from nothing. Because you can’t flood the earth using the regular rain cycle, what with conservation of matter and energy being a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Are Segways extinct? Seems like the last I saw a Segway tour (and therefore a Segway) in downtown Austin was 2 (?) years ago. 

I see security guards in grocery store parking lots with them once in a while.

Edit: Maybe Chinese knock-offs.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as of now there are approximately 2.13 million species on earth.  So that means more than 4 million animals would have had to be on the ark.  

I'm serious, any human that actually believes the ark was a thing should be forcibly sterilized.  Fuck you people for making our world dumber.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So as of now there are approximately 2.13 million species on earth.  So that means more than 4 million animals would have had to be on the ark.  

I'm serious, any human that actually believes the ark was a thing should be forcibly sterilized.  Fuck you people for making our world dumber.

fans GIF

 

Bruh, I'm 75% sure we are twins separated at birth. We have the same timeline, same views, same general disposition. The Seinfeld obsession needs to be addressed, but at another time. 

You're genuinely asking how they believe sky daddy does shit? Faith. That's the only answer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

*Segue. A Segway is what fat republicans ride on city tours. 

Maybe BV mounted those Baylor alums while cracking his rape jokes...you know, for effect. 

41 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Are Segways extinct? Seems like the last I saw a Segway tour (and therefore a Segway) in downtown Austin was 2 (?) years ago. 

 

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I see security guards in grocery store parking lots with them once in a while.

Edit: Maybe Chinese knock-offs.

Segway cashed out to a Chinese company, and they discontinued the product a while back. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Learned about the ark stuff a couple of weeks ago when we took a neighbor to a wedding.  Her daughter and family planned a trip over there just to go see the ark.  The website for that thing is something else.

1902-ThinkBigger_2000x1085.jpg

goddamnit white people

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So as of now there are approximately 2.13 million species on earth.  So that means more than 4 million animals would have had to be on the ark.  

MAGA/Christian Young Earthers: Well you see, there were only a few thousand species 6,000 years ago, and then after The Flood, they spread out, and were fruitful and multiplied and evolved

Everybody else: Wait, you believe in evolution?

MAGA/Christian Young Earthers:

Science Fiction Mind Blown GIF by FilmStruck

 

If you want a deep dive

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1366&context=icc_proceedings#:~:text=This report investigates the identity,feasibility of the Ark account.&text=Until the late 18th century,species were known (77).

This report investigates the identity and housing of approximately 16,000 animals on Noah's Ark. An evaluation of
the housing, feeding, and watering requirements of these animals demonstrate the feasibility of the Ark account.

....

Until the late 18th century, only a few hundred mammalian species were known (77). Up to that time, the account
of the Ark was accepted literally. No problem was seen in the housing and care of this small number of animals.
Now nearly 5000 mammalian species are known (77). Partly because of the ever-growing number of animals
discovered in the last two centuries (and needed to be accommodated on the Ark), the Ark account was gradually
abandoned by most believers. For a historical survey of the rejection of the Ark account, see Browne [8, pp. 3-27).


The belief in the impossibility of the Ark spawned various compromises, such as the local flood theory. This
reduced the Noachian Deluge to a glorified river flood of the Tigris-Euphrates. In recent years, the Ark account has
enjoyed a renaissance of limited general attention as a result of the modern Scientific Creationist revival. This, in
turn, has triggered a rather vitrioliC backlash against the Ark account by anti-Creationists (notably Moore [52)).


The purpose of this work is systematically to examine the account of the Ark from the viewpoint of the feasibility
of the housing of animals on the Ark. Diamond (12) has discussed the work of the 17th Century Jesuit Athanasius
Kircher regarding the Ark and its logistiCS, and challenged modern Creationists to do the same. I have accepted
the challenge.


Arguments against the Ark are basically the same, whether they are old or new, or whether they come from
unbelievers, modernists, or various evangelicals (i.e. '1heistic" evolutionists and semi-Creationists). Some of these
arguments are examined and answered in this article. In a future monograph on the Ark, the arguments are
rebutted in much more detail and comprehensiveness. The lengthy monograph is tentatively scheduled for
publication by the Institute for Creation Research, probably in 1995. Owing to the space limitations of these
Proceedings, only a fraction of the information to be published in the monograph can be presented here.
Furthermore, only the results of some calculations, without tabulated data or supporting detail, are presented h

...

Moore [52) has alleged that the Ark account, in order to work as described in Scripture, would require so many
miraculous solutions to (his imagined) insurmountable problems, that it would have been far easier for God to have
transported Noah's family to heaven and just recreated a new biota on earth after the Flood. The central fallacy
of his argument, solely with respect to theology, is the premise that God always prefers to work one large miracle
rather than many smaller ones. Consider, for instance, the fact that God could have instantaneously teleported the
Israelites into the Promised Land rather than have worked the many smaller miracles associated with the Exodus
and the 40 years in the wilderness. He obviously chose not to do it this way, even though it would have been far
simpler (according to Moore's thinking).

Whitcomb [75, p.19) has identified the following six areas of Divine miraculous action with regard to the Flood: 1)
the divinely-revealed design of the Ark; 2) the gathering and care of the animals; 3) the uplift of oceanic waters from
beneath; 4) the release of waters from above; 5) the formation of our present ocean basins; and 6) the formation
of our present continents and mountain ranges. I concur with Whitcomb's analysis, except that I assume only
naturalistic causes in the housing and care of animals on the Ark. The primary reason why I reject miracles not
explicitly listed in Scripture (e.g. a supernaturally-Induced sleep over the animals on the Ark so that they would
require minimal care) Is the fact that they are completely unnecessary.

...

It was shown long ago [39, 76) that the Ark was not required to carry every species of Kingdom Animalia. Oblivious
to this, recent critics of the Ark account (e.g. Moore [52). McGowan [46), and Futuyma [24)) continue to repeat the
old canard that it did. For instance, Moore [52, p. 16) fantasizes that the Ark carried deep-sea fish. McGowan [46,
p. 57), not to be outdone, puts whales and sharks on the Ark. Futuyma [24, pp. 202-3) adds to the farce by
repositing all the millions of plant and animal species on to the Ark.


Fantasies and straw-men of the Ark aside, we can examine what Scripture actually says concerning the types of
animal life taken on the Ark. The Hebrew terminology In the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been
taken on the Ark [39). The same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates [29, pp. 66-7). It is clear that
the contents of the Ark were limited to all living and extinct land mammals, birds, and land reptiles [39].


Possibly the more terrestrial amphibians were on the Ark [39). But since they were few in number [10, 16] and were
mostly small in size [10, 35, 62), their presence on the Ark would have had a negligible effect on calculations. For
this reason, they are not considered further. At the same time, it must be remembered that I have erred on the side
of amphibious animals by virtue of the fact that I have included entire extant and extinct terrestrial families on the
Ark, even if some of their members were amphibious. This is necessary because of the fact that many amphibious
animals do not show obvious skeletal features reflecting their capability for living in water, making it virtually
impossible to know for certain which extinct genera were semi-aquatic and therefore not taken on the Ark.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...