Talk:Goddidit

From RationalWiki

Surely either goddammit or (pref) godamnit or goddamnit Keep^{Me informed} 20:33, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to agree. CЯacke® 20:34, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

You bitches, I was trying to keep the number of letters the same. But I yield, obviously, to the mob... human^{be in} 23:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Very First Goddidit Talk

I was working on a topic about noah's ark, and mentioned to a religious co-worker of mine, three problems that I didn't yet have an article for. 1) why some water dwelling animals survived while others (dinosaurs) didn't, 2) why fish survived teh sudden change in salinity, and 3) how noah dealt with wood rot for the 100 years he was making his boat. to the first two she said "God has the power to kill of those animals he didn't want to live. it would be his decision if he let them survive", and to the second, "God protected the boat so it didn't rot." How do you argue against this? Seriously? --WaitingforGodot 10:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Eheh, you don't. To quote AKjeldsen, it's an epic waste of time. If you were so inclined, you could patiently explain the fallacies of biblical literacy, but that may be more effort than it's worth. _Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 11:19, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

If "God has the power to kill of those animals he didn't want to live. it would be his decision if he let them survive" then what was the point of the flood in the first place? Daecon 11:42, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

A global flood is more visually impressive than snapping your fingers to make them all disappear  : ) _Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 11:43, 10 July 2008 (EDT)