Dinosaurs according to Genesis



  • I was going to post this in the Joke thread with a rhetorical "does this qualify?", but I think it deserves more eyes so I'm posting on the Sidebar instead:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/dinosaurs-fit:

    How did all the dinosaurs fit on the ark? - Abby G. (age 6)

    Answer:

    And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits (Genesis 6:15).

    Abby, your question is often asked by people a lot older than six! First of all, God told Noah how big to make the ark (see our verse). You might ask, what is a cubit? I believe the cubit that was used was about 20 inches long . . . and that would make the ark as long as one and a half football fields—about 510 feet (155 meters)—as tall as a 4-story building—about 45 feet (14 meters)—and about 85 feet (23 meters) wide! It was really big! Now another thing is that although there are hundreds of names of dinosaurs, there were probably only about 50 actual kinds. So, there may have only been a total of 100 dinosaurs on the ark. That still seems like a lot, doesn’t it?

    But, did you know that most dinosaurs were actually quite small? In fact, the average size of a dinosaur is the size of a sheep. (Some were as small as chickens!) And for the few dinosaurs that grew large, it would make sense that God would send smaller young adults. You know, after looking at all of these facts, I think there was plenty of room on the ark for the dinosaurs and all the other animals God sent to survive the Flood.

    Relevant



  •  I was expecting the Sega Genesis for some sick reason.  I am disappoint.



  • TRWTF is taking the Bible, Quoran, etcetera, as books of facts and base any other fact on what they state.



  • मैं एक बेवकूफ शेर हूँ, यहाँ देखने के लिए कुछ भी नहीं है

    Tee hee - I like it!



  • Although taking the animals in to the ark while they are still infants would have saved a lot of space, I think that dinosaurs did not get taken aboard. That's why you don't see too many of them these days.

    I guess that a few specimens survived anyways, which would explain all
    the dragon lore among the chinese and old europe. But I think it's safe
    to presume that they're now extinct, as the last eyewitness record is
    from the early medieval period.

    Genesis 7. ...Depending on translation, it could read as "animals that can be found
    now were taken aboard". I kind of dislike the interpretation that every
    species that existed in the beginning had to be taken aboard. It doesn't
    make much sense if you think of all the fish. 

    Just for curiosity, does anyone here actually know how large a T-Rex was when it got out of its egg? ... Did Jurassic Park actually have the sizes right? And then there's the mini-pigs and other micro-pets. They only stay small for a year or so before they grow to a more familiar size, but they sure are small when they are young.


    And yes, I do take Genesis as fact. The flood explains why we have now zero live dinosaurs, but a lot of perfectly preserved bones. But that's about all I'm going to say about this. Let's not flood the Sidebar with another argument on evolution, shall we?

     

    Edit: typos. CS editor.

     

    Edit 2:

    P.S. Don't forget the possibility of taking animals in as eggs. Maximum space and food savings.




  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @OldCrow said:

    Don't forget the possibility of taking animals in as eggs. Maximum space and food savings.
    So, Noah, do you like your dinosaur eggs scrambled or fried? Poached? We can do that if you prefer.



  • @ubersoldat said:

    TRWTF is taking the Bible, Quoran, etcetera, as books of facts and base any other fact on what they state.

    Prepare for a beheading!



  • @Ben L. said:

    @OldCrow said:
    I'm either trolling or I'm one of those people. I think that all this science stuff is just the secularists trying to replace my belief structure with facts and I don't like that.

    If it makes you feel any better, I think most secularists are stupider than the religious folk. And I say this as somebody who has no faith whatsoever.



  • @dkf said:

    @OldCrow said:
    Don't forget the possibility of taking animals in as eggs. Maximum space and food savings.
    So, Noah, do you like your dinosaur eggs scrambled or fried? Poached? We can do that if you prefer.

    This raises an interesting question: did any species go extinct because they were eaten/died of natural causes? I mean, Noah had every animal on Earth on there. Surely some died, and we know he only took two of each.

    I suppose you could say "God protected them" or whatever, but in that case why didn't God just have Noah take DNA samples and give him blueprints for a cloning vat? Seems kind of dick-ish to make Noah build a big ship just to hold all those animals, when the important animal parts could have fit in a Frigidaire.



  • Or, being omniscient and omnipotent, he could just have recreated the animals.

    Or skipped the whole flood thing and just killed the people.

    Or not created people that he'd have to kill later.

    I think he was a bit of a dick.



  • I thought even the fundies believed the dinosaurs died DURING the flood and weren't on the ark. Are these like ultra-fundies?



  • @OldCrow said:

    Just for curiosity, does anyone here actually know how large a T-Rex was when it got out of its egg?

    You can judge using this well-respected documentary.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    did any species go extinct because they were eaten/died of natural causes? I mean, Noah had every animal on Earth on there. Surely some died, and we know he only took two of each.
     

    ObBiblicalNitpick:  Except that he took seven of some of them.

    Okay, with that out of the way....

    I wonder if Noah would have bothered taking two dodos, two aurochs, two western black rhinos, two barbary lions, two quagga, etc if he had known what was going to happen to them.



  • @OldCrow said:

    P.S. Don't forget the possibility of taking animals in as eggs. Maximum space and food savings.

    Alright, I'll bite the troll.

    Eggs don't hatch themselves. Did Noah also have an incubator system? What about when/if those eggs hatched onboard. Did Noah chew up worms and spit them into the hatchlings' mouths?

    For that matter, if Noah had to pick one of each gender, how the hell did he knew which eggs to pick? 

    Wouldn't eggs also be extremely fragile, given a ship in a storm? Oops, too hard to port. SPLAT.

    And even if those eggs survive to the end of the voyage, and magically hatch, how do you expect the hatchlings to survive in the wild without parents? EXTINCT!

    AND NOW FOR THE BONUS ROUND!

    Take two animals. Any two, but let's go with a couple mammals. Breed them. Then breed their children with each other. Continue to breed these offsprings EXCLUSIVELY with each other. How many generations do you think this species will survive. PLACE YOUR BETS!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @OldCrow said:
    I'm either trolling or I'm one of those people. I think that all this science stuff is just the secularists trying to replace my belief structure with facts and I don't like that.

    If it makes you feel any better, I think most secularists are stupider than the religious folk. And I say this as somebody who has no faith whatsoever.

    I think most people who use the word "secularists" non-jokingly are stupider than most newborns.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @da Doctah said:

    I wonder if Noah would have bothered taking two dodos, two aurochs, two western black rhinos, two barbary lions, two quagga, etc if he had known what was going to happen to them.
    Also, did he really take two of each type of tapeworm and other parasite? They're animals too. If he did, he's responsible for the suffering of millions of children and millions more adults, and so should rot in hell forever. QED.

    There are other alternatives though. It might be that God's actually a total dick, or it might be that there's actually no God, or that the flood didn't cover the whole earth (just a localized area) and all Noah took with him was his farm animals. (It's also possible that there was no Noah at all, but I suspect that's not the case: an ancient tale that's grown beyond all reason is far more likely.)



  • @spamcourt said:

    Or skipped the whole flood thing and just killed the people.

    Or not created people that he'd have to kill later.

    No no no, you're missing the point. Killing people is fun, and drowning them is the best. Sure, he could have just vaporized them, but where's the sport in that?

    @spamcourt said:

    I think he was a bit of a dick.

    I want to give you unlimited power and see you not be a dick.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I thought even the fundies believed the dinosaurs died DURING the flood and weren't on the ark. Are these like ultra-fundies?

    I distinctly remember being taught that Jesus rode a stegosaurus into the Colosseum when he had that duel with Muhammad..



  • What about unicorns? Oh, right, the dinosaurs ate them.



  • @da Doctah said:

    ObBiblicalNitpick:  Except that he took seven of some of them.

    Which ones?

    @da Doctah said:

    I wonder if Noah would have bothered taking two dodos, two aurochs, two western black rhinos, two barbary lions, two quagga, etc if he had known what was going to happen to them.

    Well, he also took a bunch of Jews..



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Any two, but let's go with a couple mammals. Breed them. Then breed their children with each other. Continue to breed these offsprings EXCLUSIVELY with each other. How many generations do you think this species will survive. PLACE YOUR BETS!

    Well, the Royal Family is still around..

    The Bible has a lot of that "go forth an incest", but the problem of extra retard babies never comes up. Then again, most people I encounter seem pretty retarded, so maybe the Bible is right..



  • @Ben L. said:

    I think most people who use the word "secularists" non-jokingly are stupider than most newborns.

    Really? That's actually an oddly religious position to take.



  • @dkf said:

    Also, did he really take two of each type of tapeworm and other parasite?

    Well arguably those might have hitched a ride in the other animals.

    @dkf said:

    If he did, he's responsible for the suffering of millions of children and millions more adults, and so should rot in hell forever.

    What I'm more concerned with: did he know that preserving humanity would give us Seth MacFarlane? Because that guy has caused more suffering than a mere eyeball-devouring parasite.

    @dkf said:

    It's also possible that there was no Noah at all, but I suspect that's not the case: an ancient tale that's grown beyond all reason is far more likely.

    Oh, there was a Noah. And his son raped him and God cursed that son's offspring--the Arabs--which is why they are such dicks.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    I think most people who use the word "secularists" non-jokingly are stupider than most newborns.

    Really? That's actually an oddly religious position to take.

    It's not if you think about who says it.



  •  I've always liked how the Arkis like a quarter of the size of the Titanic. I'm not sure you could fit two of every animal on the Titanic either.



  • @BC_Programmer said:

     I've always liked how the Arkis like a quarter of the size of the Titanic. I'm not sure you could fit two of every animal on the Titanic either.


    I'm not sure you could keep two blue whales on the titanic. Maybe one if you removed the interior walls and the hull...



  • @Ben L. said:

    @BC_Programmer said:

     I've always liked how the Arkis like a quarter of the size of the Titanic. I'm not sure you could fit two of every animal on the Titanic either.


    I'm not sure you could keep two blue whales on the titanic. Maybe one if you removed the interior walls and the hull...


    Yes, you could. And the birds, too. There aren't that many species on the earth. Different breeds of the same effective species were likely discarded. Also, only birds and land-crawlers are mentioned as having been taken aboard. The whales were left to their own devices. ...You know, I'd wondedred for the longest time how fish got to all these lakes that had no sea or river in sight.

    With the edible animals, inbreeding was not so much a problem, as they took 7 pairs of those.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    NO EGGS

    Ok. You got me. No eggs.

    But micro-pet -theory is still valid.

    @Ben L. said:

    Help me! I'm a raging atheist!

    I saved these for you:

    http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

    http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

     I hope they can help you get over the Darwinist lie. Science, as in unbiased unadulterated facts, supports Creation

     

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    Any two, but let's go with a couple mammals. Breed them. Then breed their children with each other. Continue to breed these offsprings EXCLUSIVELY with each other. How many generations do you think this species will survive. PLACE YOUR BETS!
    Well, the Royal Family is still around..

    The Bible has a lot of that "go forth an incest", but the problem of extra retard babies never comes up. Then again, most people I encounter seem pretty retarded, so maybe the Bible is right..


    Where would this command be, exactly? I don't seem to remember any.

    If you want to look for inbreeding-induced defects in the post-flood generation, the how about the average lifespan? Before the flood, everybody lived a lot longer. Hundreds of years.

    But humans are tough; inbreeding hasn't killed off the Icelanders or Canarians yet. The Canarians might have been described as a bit retarded every now and then, but no-one has had any complaints about the Icelanders.



  • @OldCrow said:

    There aren't that many species on the earth. Different breeds of the same effective species were likely discarded. Also, only birds and land-crawlers are mentioned as having been taken aboard.

    I hope you've got a really big boat.

    @OldCrow said:

    http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

    http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

    Hahah, you crack me up!
    But seriously though, got any evidence for creation?

    @OldCrow said:

    Science, as in unbiased unadulterated facts, supports Creation

    Even if evolution was completely and utterly wrong, there is pretty much no evidence supporting creation.



  • @OldCrow said:

    Controversial fringe religious opinions

    @Everyone Else said:

    Taking those statements at face value and arguing about those opinions

    @OldCrow said:

    Relishing the kind of attention that daddy would never give him when he was a boy

    Oh, come on, guys.  A recently registered user on a technology-related forum claims to hold extremely controversial beliefs about religion? And most of that user's posts so far have either incited or perpetuated arguments about those beliefs? And the TDWTF forums are actually susceptible to this kind of bare-faced, hackneyed trolling?

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    Just for curiosity, does anyone here actually know how large a T-Rex was when it got out of its egg?
    Ah yes, the "were you there?" argument.



  • @GNU Pepper said:

    the TDWTF forums are actually susceptible to this kind of bare-faced, hackneyed trolling?

    Susceptible?

    Surely this forum's primary purpose is to act as a training ground for bare-faced, hackneyed trolling.



  • Oh hey, look, today's xkcd is relevant.

    So, not only were there dinos on the ark, it was also a dinosaur who brought back an olive branch, I guess?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I thought even the fundies believed the dinosaurs died DURING the flood and weren't on the ark. Are these like ultra-fundies?
     

    They are differents opinions on the subjects, not unlike scientists having differents opinions on some topics.

    Some believe that the Noah Ark is an allegory, like the Tower of Babel. Some other believe that it's true in spirit, I.E. it was an impressive flood that killed nearly all human. It's pretty "common" amongst european fundamentalist, but are a bit less easy to mock.

     Some believe that the story happened like the bible said. But even among them, some believe the earth is old and dinosaur were already extinct at that time, or that they were not on the ark because they were impure or something.

     On the small amount of nuts that believe dinosaur on the ark, I have seen some arguing that the old english epic Beowulf is also inerrant, and that it describe a (pagan) hero slaughtering some of the last dinosaur, Grendel being a Tyranosaurus Rex for example. It's pretty amusing, more so than the trollish attempt here. See http://www.creationmoments.com/content/beowulf-and-grendel for example.



  • There were dinosaurs on the ark, but the tigers ate them all.



  • @OldCrow said:

    And yes, I do take Genesis as fact.... etc.

    OK I'll bite, even though I take the view that people with religion are either:



    (1) Trolling the entire world, hard, for their entire lives, and thus should really be ignored

    OR

    (2) Mentally ill, and thus should really be ignored



    Now answer this: What about all the fucking plants? Nowhere does the bible mention how Noah saved the fucking plants... you know, the ones that need both oxygen and carbon dioxide in large amounts, without which they will starve and die in less than 40 days. The plants that drown if given too much water, because they automatically just suck that shit up, regardless of how much of it there is, thereby killing themselves.



    My advice to you dude, is that if you don't want to flood the sidebar with "another argument on evolution", you should understand that we're (for the most part) logical, scientifically minded people around here. Logical, scientifically minded people who are gonna rip you a massive new one if you dare to spew you're stupid religious shit EVEN IN REPLY to someone else.



    So basically, fuck you and your stupid beliefs.



    And because I don't feel I've expressed this strongly enough, I'm simply going to repeat myself:

    Fuck you and your stupid beliefs.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Ben L. said:
    I think most people who use the word "secularists" non-jokingly are stupider than most newborns.

    Really? That's actually an oddly religious position to take.

    It's not if you think about who says it.

    And yet, those guys are still a lot better than the people they criticize. Or maybe newborns are just different where you are.



  • @OldCrow said:

    Let's not flood the Sidebar with another argument on evolution, shall we?

    Hullo, chaps! I just beat my wife bloody today, she burned the bacon, that slut. But let's not talk about my violent views on women!

    Seriously, in what scenario could you possibly envisage this argument not happen?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I distinctly remember being taught that Jesus rode a stegosaurus into the Colosseum when he had that duel with Muhammad..

    That's ridiculous, Muhammad Ali lived thousands of years (hundreds? ... tens?) after Jesus. And he was a boxer; Jesus is more into MMA.



  • @TheLazyHase said:

    the old english epic Beowulf is also inerrant, and that it describe a (pagan) hero slaughtering some of the last dinosaur, Grendel being a Tyranosaurus Rex for example.

    Feh. Grendal was obviously Angelina Jolie. They aren't even trying.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If it makes you feel any better, I think most secularists are stupider than the religious folk. And I say this as somebody who has no faith whatsoever.
    You're starting to replicate the real Morbius' tone quite well: insulting, recalcitrant, unreasonable and non-committal at the same time. GJ.



  • @arh said:

    Seriously, in what scenario could you possibly envisage this argument not happen?

    Allow me to reiterate my earlier post in plain language. OldCrow does not actually believe that Genesis is the literal origin story of the world. Internet forums have a long and storied history of people feigning all kinds of unlikely, controversial points of view in order to encourage lively debate and attract attention to themselves. This practice is known as "trolling", and some practicioners elevate it to an almost art-like level. They gather in IRC and occasionally other forums to brag to one another about their conquests and mock those foolish enough to waste their time and energy angrily debating a non-existent opponent. Hallmarks of trolling include:

    • A new user with no established standing within the community attracting a lot of attention and creating a lot of controversy
    • Over-correction in their attempts to hide their true motives, e.g. suffixing their outrageous statements with "let's not get into a big flamewar about it though"
    • They very rarely engage in normal discussion that isn't about them or their controversial point of view

    Internet 101, people. If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, and bites like a troll, it's a troll. TRWTF is the laissez-faire administration of this fucking forum.

     



  • You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.



  • @ekolis said:

    What about unicorns? Oh, right, the dinosaurs ate them.
     

    Depends on which gospel you believe. If you're optimistic and go the Peter, Paul and Mary route, the Unicorns were just too darn playful. They spent all their time playing and frolicking, didn't listen to Noah when he said "now or never, guys", and literally missed the boat. That's why you'll see some green alligators, long neck geese, some monkeys and some camels and some chimpanzes, some rats and bats and elephants, but sure as you're born, you're never gonna see no unicorn.

    Or if you're pessimistic, you subscribe to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_wanted_on_the_voyage"]Timothy Findley[/url]... where Noah rapes his 11 year old daughter-in-law with a Unicorn horn (still attached to the living Unicorn), so she'll be stretched enough to receive her husband, so her husband will stop being so pre-occupied with sex and can instead focus on duties of tending to the animals and slaughtering pirate dolphins. This backfires, and Noah's son cuts off the Unicorn's horn (because, y'know, that was all the unicorn's fault), which causes it to slowly die in agony.

    The rest of the book is-- well, exactly like that. Not that it isn't good. It's just wrist-slittingly good. And it was written by a Canadian. You're welcome.



  • @Salamander said:

    You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.

     

    Or as a thought/writing exercise. If you can't draw a ridiculous statement to a logic conclusion, then you'll never be able to deal with specs from management.

     



  • @Salamander said:

    You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.

    Yeah! So don't come here talking about internet 101, you're the ones who need to read books and stuff! Besides, it's not my fault, it's my genes. Feed me!



  • @Salamander said:

    You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.
     

    Doesn't sound like the ingredients for the epitome of discussion to me https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/52/Trolling101.png

     



  • @GNU Pepper said:

    @Salamander said:

    You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.
     

    Doesn't sound like the ingredients for the epitome of discussion to me https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/52/Trolling101.png

     

    So basically you're saying we're morons?

    @eViLegion said:

    Fuck you and your stupid beliefs.



  • @arh said:

    @GNU Pepper said:

    @Salamander said:

    You're assuming the only reason people respond to trolls is out of anger and not something like boredom or just to see how hilariously insane the troll's statements can become.
     

    Doesn't sound like the ingredients for the epitome of discussion to me https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/52/Trolling101.png

     

    So basically you're saying we're morons?

    @eViLegion said:

    Fuck you and your stupid beliefs.

    I wasn't actually trolling. I hold this opinion openly in real life at any religious people who mention their religion to me (I leave them alone if they stay quiet about it).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.