Who wants a good laugh?

I love whenever Bible literalists decide they need to try and scientifically prove the mythology of their scripture is actually historic and scientific fact. It’s like watching a child try to walk for the first time, only to see them fall and slam their little fat faces on the ground. Call me a evil bastard if you will, but I try to enjoy the little things.

Here’s a hilarious article that will have you in stitches; the author is trying to prove Noah’s Ark was a real event, rather than an allegory on redemption. Here’s his summary:

It is obvious that when all the facts of the Genesis account of the flood are examined that there is no reason to doubt that the ark could easily have carried its intended cargo. The biblical account is not a revision of a Babylonia myth. All the scientific evidence shows that the ark could easily have contained all of the animals that were used to repopulate the earth after the flood.

I love how he admits the source of the story is most likely a Babylonian myth that the authors of the Bible totally¬†plagiarized, and then boldly denies it once he’s done with his “calculation”.¬†¬†There’s a whole cottage industry of people seeking to marry their primitive Bronze Age mythology with modern science. It would be fucking hilarious if it wasn’t so sadly pointless. I’m not sure anyone who actually believes in the Bible really cares about the truth, and there’s certainly ZERO integrity in trying to prove something as ridiculous as Noah’s Ark being historical fact. Still, it’s helluva fun to watch this gigantic train wreck. Enjoy!

Comments (3)

  • avatar


    I had a friend back in highschool that had a very religious family (she was also technically religious, but wasn’t in your face religious and was happy to be having sex and a baby before marriage).

    One day I was round her house and her younger brother told us about how there’s a book that explains exactly how every word in the bible is true. He specifically pointed out the part about Noah’s ark which included the specific measurements of the ark. Seriously there’s a book given to people explaining the exact dimensions of the ark. Me and my atheist friend who was with me bit our tongues for the sake of unity but could not believe there was a book and people who believed the ark actually existed.

  • avatar


    so they are admitting evolution? How else would all pigeon species evolve from the rock pigeon (which happens to be one of Darwin’s favourite subjects in The Origin of Species).
    One would have to ask how much food would be needed for 40,000 ‘sheep’ – I think most omnivores eat a significant portion of their body weight each day (and excrete most of it, too – though I suppose that could have been dumped over the side with a lot of shovelling – Noah and his boys must have been going 24/7 and in triple shifts!).
    My rough guesstimate would be they would run out of fodder after only a week – 10 days at the most. 30 days of hunger.
    Then there’s the water issue – not only are you surrounded by salt water – you’ve just dumped tonnes of effluent into it. 10 litres of water takes 10 kg and 1 cubic metre – reckon on an average of 2 litres per animal per day and you need 320,000 litres of water for 40 days.
    My only regret is that only rationalists will read and understand all this

  • avatar


    Oh, man. I think I just lost IQ points trying to read that drivel.

    He didn’t take every species, just representative “kinds?” And then what? They evolved? Oh, wait.

    “The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small rodent.” Eh?? So he “averages” it out, says he can fit 40K rodents on there, and calls it a day? How many rodents = a giraffe?

    Batshit crazy. Yes, indeed.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top