Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 11984

Evolution isn't damaging to Christianity, Christianity is damaging to evolution. Read Genesis 1 then do a cross reference on Adam and Eve throughout the Bible.

Oh, and yes, Genesis 1 is literal. History if always literal.

pastorkevin73, Christian Forums 28 Comments [5/27/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CousinTed
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Bob_Zimmerman

Yes, history is always literal. No, the Bible is not literal.

Correlating the two statements above is left as an exercise to the reader.

5/28/2006 5:15:45 AM

Hadanelith

non-literal history is false history. Congratulations, you've made a pointless sentence. You've also included two unsupported assertions and an imperative that proves nothing. Conclusion: this entire post is pointless.

5/28/2006 5:25:57 AM

Talisman

\"Oh, and yes, Genesis 1 is literal. History if always literal.\"

Tell me you're not really this gullable.

5/28/2006 5:53:42 AM

Napoleon the Clown

This logic and pastorkevin have something in common. Three guesses what it is. *Hint: It has to do with the fact that the good pastor has his head shoved up his ass atleast to the shoulders.*

5/28/2006 6:44:10 AM

Julian

1. Doesn't cross referencing Adam and Eve throughout the bible discredit everything that references them, including Jesus?

2. History is written by the fucking winners. This is why \"God\" is monotheistic instead of part of a pantheon - it was a rewrite by the Ugaritic monarchy!

3. Some minor problems with Genesis 1.


According to Genesis the world was created in this order:
1- Light
2- Water
3- Land
4- Day and Night
5- Water creatures
6- Land creatures
7- Man

The Theory (and it is one because it hasn't been proven) of Evolution suggests this same order.


Well see not all of that's evolution for starters.

Furthermore - Water requires oxygen - oxygen is a product of Beryllium fusion in stars - stars weren't made until the 4th day, yet water was there on the 1st?

He spent three days labouring over Earth and then just happened throw together the stars etc when Earth consists of approximately 1x10-70 of the mass of the universe. That's a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a ten billionth.

And that firmament was an interesting thing - I guess that's why they had to fake the moon landing, right?

It mentioned whales as water creatures - yet whales were land creatures that returned to the sea only 50 million years ago, over 300 million years after their ancestors crawled onto the land.

It says birds were made before land animals, yet birds are the only living descendants of dinosaurs - (crocodilians and the reptiles which became mammals were not dinosaurs).

Plants were created before the sun and seasons. Not only this, but fruit bearing plants were created 2-3 days before the animals that ate the fruit of plants allowing them to distribute their seeds.

Evolution is dependant upon reproduction, so animals with a short adolescence evolve much faster. This can be shown in the studies of speciation of fruit flies, viruses mutating, and mosquitoes becoming immune to pesticides. DDT nearly eradicated them, but a few survived in Laos and Venezuala and they recolonized the planet in a few short years. We are not the end point of evolution.

Can we not go into the whole carnivore/fall of man plant eating T-Rex's etc.

5/28/2006 6:48:51 AM

Maronan

To see if part of the Bible is accurate, we have to cross-check it to the Bible?

This is a Circle Line logic train via God, the Bible, and Hisword.

5/28/2006 10:38:53 AM

Crosis

<<< Oh, and yes, Genesis 1 is literal. >>>

Then you've got mountains (literally and figuratively) of evidence to explain away.

<<< Christianity is damaging to evolution. >>>

Only if you're dumb enough to take everything literally.

5/28/2006 4:33:39 PM

mad dog

Well one thing that certainly hasn't evolved is this guy's reasoning beyond the age of 6

5/28/2006 9:39:29 PM

Berny

What can I say that hasn't been said already?
Idiots like these are the enemy of anyone with any kind of decent education. They're the kind of moron we're fighting whenever something like the Dover Schoolboard situation crops up.
Too stupid to understand current thinking on science and too wrapped up in their dogma to care that reality in vastly different from their beliefs.

5/29/2006 2:34:15 AM

Papabear

Christianity is damaging to intellectual honesty.

5/29/2006 5:20:47 PM

David D.G.

What Papabear said, a hundred times, in letters 10 feet high!


~David D.G.

5/30/2006 3:09:54 PM

Adrian

No, history is written by the winner, and the winner always makes a skew version to make them look good.

12/24/2006 11:40:38 PM

JM

A 2000-year-old book =|= history.

6/21/2007 7:31:45 PM

Pix

Read Genesis 1 then do a cross reference on Adam and Eve throughout the Bible.

At which point you will promptly bump into Genesis 2, which differs from Genesis 1 on several key points, and realize this entire exercise is pointless.

6/21/2007 7:35:17 PM

Goosey

Genesis 1 is not history.

History is a record of the past.

A record of the past, by its very definition, needs to be recorded.

So who recorded days 1-5 of the Creation, hmm?

6/21/2007 8:27:45 PM

Mr_Vorhias

This guy probably uses the word literal in the same way some idiot says about a sports play: "They literally ripped their heads off on that play!"

6/22/2007 12:48:17 PM

Allegory for Jesus

Gravity isn't damaging to Disney, Disney is damaging to gravity. Watch Dumbo and then do a cross reference with Peter Pan throughout his adventures with Wendy.

Oh and yes, Dumbo is literal. Documentaries are always literal.

9/14/2010 7:45:06 PM

Justanotheratheist

Genesis 1 is horseshit, and cross-referencing does not mean using the same fucking source as the original material. If the original material is complete nonsense, it will remain complete nonsense.

Plus, your opening sentence is the wrong way around. Evolution is damaging to your useless Bible, for reasons that are so fucking obvious that they don't need spelling out.

9/15/2010 2:19:47 AM

Angua

Okay. If Genesis 1 is literal, then Genesis 2 is clearly false!

That's the clearest any Fundamentalist has ever given me when I've looked into how they reconcile the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 have two separate creation accounts that contradict each other.

How did you figure out which one was the literal truth though?

And, moving on, which Gospel has the correct account of Jesus's death and resurrection? And which version of Judas's death is the literally correct one?

9/15/2010 12:40:14 PM

Swede

Don't forget to read Genesis 2, which sort of contradicts Genesis 1. So much for literal...

History is never literal. Have you never heard the phrase "History is written by the winners"?
Those who are obliterated by an army don't get to tell their side of the story.

9/15/2010 12:57:22 PM

Karana

If the Bible is history, why is it not taught in history class? I never learned anything about the Bible in school. Why? Because there's really no evidence that anything that could be considered historical actually happened in it. The only thing I can think of would be the destruction of the temple, but that has other sources.

1/19/2012 9:41:47 PM



So, Genesis 1 is literal, but Genesis 2 isn't?
You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Evolution happens, whether Christianity is here or not, stupid.

1/20/2012 3:16:16 AM

Dr.Shrinker

Jesus said that Peter would be the rock upon which his church was founded. So what kind kind of rock was Peter? Granite? Limestone?

Remember "pastor," History if always literal

1/20/2012 8:48:12 AM



There's no way to speak to a person like this; they have already decided to not use their brain. I always found it ironic that Christians believe that God gave them their mental facilities, but then refuse to use them.

6/3/2012 3:59:56 PM

David B.

When you've finished cross-referencing the bible with itself, and ignoring the inconsistencies thrown up thereby, perhaps you should start comparing what the bible says with the world outside the book, and see what reality has to say about the bible's "history".

I warn you, it isn't pretty.

6/3/2012 4:13:08 PM
1 2