On 9-1-2011 20:26, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/8/2011 2:12 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support
>>> it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part
>>> of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something
>>> about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of
>>> the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear
>>> old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then
>>> genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then
>>> the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it
>>> would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the
>>> sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"
>>
>>> Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if
>>> Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit
>>> moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to
>>> institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on
>>> proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting
>>> its conclusions. lol
>>
>> I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the
>> entirety
>> of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming
>> there is
>> such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
>> allegorical.
>>
> It would discredit ***his***, and pretty much the view of all of the
> people like him, on the subject. In any case, they are the ones claiming
> that proving that there where not X number of imaginary "kinds" on a
> non-existent Ark, and all the other gibberish in there, would rob their
> pathetic little lives of all hope and purpose.
>
> Kind of like to know though.. If, as he claims, the whole Adam and Eve
> thing was the first "marriage", by which all others are based, where did
> I miss the ceremony and exchange of vows in there, and what where they
> exactly? lol

You forget to mention that he first had to divorce from the unnamed 
woman in gen 1:27
But let's get back to molecular biology, much more interesting than a 
repeat of the bible discussions.

Post a reply to this message