The Fallacy Of Biblical Stories, Part 2: Adam & Eve

[Gordy327]

"I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability." --- Oscar Wilde

Welcome to Part 2 of my series exploring the veracity of some biblical stories. If you missed Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark , feel free to check it out and comment, thanks. The focus of this part will be on what is one of the most well known stories within the bible, Adam & Eve. The bible not only begins with Creation and the creation of Adam & Eve, but the story itself has been a significant influence to art, literature, and poetry. One thing to note is that while the story itself is central to the Abrahamistic religions, each religion seems to have a slightly different take on on the story with regards to the details and interpretations or meanings. For this article, I will focus on the "popular" version of the story (We'll ignore the whole Lilith thing) and break it down, looking at any evidence to determine the veracity of the story. As always, comments and thoughts are welcome. Please try to address the points made and remain on topic. Thank you.

So the story goes something like this : In the beginning (the Genesis account), after God created the Heavens and the Earth, he made a garden (Eden) on Earth where he proceeded to create the first man, Adam, from dust. Adam was bored and wanted some nookie, so God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve (which makes Eve a transgendered clone of Adam). So Eve is walking around the Garden when a talking serpent (yes, a talking serpent) convinced Eve to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil (the forbidden tree). It should be noted that God previously told Adam not to eat from that tree. God may be omnipotent, but he's apparently a poor landscape planner. He plants a tree in the garden that he does not want them eating from? That's like someone planting poison ivy in their own garden. It won't go well.

But apparently, Eve didn't get the memo about no fruit eating. So the serpent convinces Eve to eat the fruit from the tree. Eve, naked and holding the fruit, offers it to Adam. Adam, apparently being compelled by the power of boners (what else could possibly compel a guy to disobey God?) due to a naked Eve, eats the fruit too. They gain knowledge, including knowledge of evil, shame, and whatever else. As a result, God curses them, expels them from Eden, has angels guard Eden so they cannot reenter, and shows that he can really hold a grudge. And thus, the rest of the human race is born from them. At least Adam got his nookie.

Like I did in Part 1, let's look at the problems associated with the story and examine the evidence. As far as the story goes regarding God creating Adam from dust, if one wants to get reeaalllyy technical about it, that would be an accurate statement, as we are essentially composed of "star dust." All the elements that make us up was formed in stars: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, ect.. Also, whatever happened to the Garden of Eden?But I digress.

1. Evolution makes Adam & Eve impossible : According to Genesis, humans appeared suddenly and practically spontaneously, because God. Never mind that one would have to first prove there's a god to make that assertion credible. The lineage of the human species can be traced back millions of years via the fossil record. Fossils show a clear progression from our earliest species ancestors up to what is now modern humans. The Adam & Eve (whom I will abbreviate as A&E) story states that God created them (modern humans) as we are now. But that flies in the face of Evolutionary theory and there's no evidence that God poofed modern humans into existence.

2. Not enough genetic diversity for a viable population : According to the myth, A&E had 3 male offspring. So we have a starting human population composed of 4 males and 1 female. Correction: 3 males and 1 female (Cain and Abel had a, shall we say, falling out). According to some accounts, Cain & Abel had sisters (possibly from Eve, as she is the "mother of all"). So that evens the playing field a little. But now we're left with incestual nookie ( Giggity ) taking place to perpetuate the species. This poses a problem. Between A&E & family, the human population is now bottlenecked. There is not enough genetic diversity to make the species viable. As a result, generations resulting from inbreeding with cause homozygosity, thereby increasing the chances of progressive genetic problems and recessive traits to appear, which will leave an unhealthy population, less ability to adapt t environmental changes, and ultimately resulting in the reduction of biological fitness and the extinction of the species.

Continued...

 

[Gordy327]

Continued...

3. Possible death from exposure : Once A&E we're expelled from Eden, they we're left out in the open, lightly clothed, but with no food, no supplies, and no shelter to protect themselves from the elements. Oh yeah, they we're fully mortal too. Sure they now had knowledge and let's assume that knowledge included basic survival skills like building a fire or shelter. They still had no medical care or provisions. Even a minor injury could be fatal, such as an infection from a scratch (I doubt A&E had their vaccinations). It's like if you were to suddenly find yourself deposited in the middle of nowhere with nothing but the clothes you are wearing. Would you be able to survive, let alone reproduce? Let's not forget that before the advent of modern medicine, the maternal/child mortality/morbidity rate was higher than it is today. Eve giving birth to 3 sons is like playing reproductive Russian Roulette. Now, I'm not saying this discredits the A&E story. It is certainly possible that they could have developed the means to continue surviving in the wild. But given the circumstances, the cards were stacked against them.

4. The A&E story is borrowed from other sources : Many biblical stories are borrowed from other sources and A&E is no different. Much like the Noah's Ark story, the A&E story borrows elements from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Basically, Gilgamesh had a plant of immortality which he lost due to a devious snake. He was also lonely so the gods created a companion for him. Also, a woman comes along and causes them to lose their idyllic lives. Is this starting to sound familiar?

So there we have it. The biggest nails in A&E's coffins is our knowledge of evolution and genetics. A literal 2 individuals could not have produced the entire human species. So perhaps it's best to treat the A&E story for what it is, a story and one which may convey some kind of morality tale. And it works just fine like that. But as a literal story, then it falls apart completely.

 

[Gordy327]

At some point, I'll get to Part 3, which will focus on the 10 plagues of Egypt.

 

[Schism]

Kudos. You've done a great job of convincing yourself.

 

[Grand Mal]

Adam and Eve were humans when they were hunter-gatherers. They lived in a state of innocence. They lost that state of innocence when they learned to call things good or evil. Then, after losing theif innocence, they became agriculturalists. Adam was a herder, Cain a planter. Agriculture was the root of all of mankinds problems.

 

[Gordy327]

Kudos. You've done a great job of convincing yourself.

Convincing myself of what exactly?

 

[Schism]

Convincing myself of what exactly?

Convincing yourself to spend so much time and energy thinking about things you don't believe in.

It's spectacular.

 

[Gordy327]

Convincing yourself to spend so much time and energy thinking about things you don't believe in.

It's spectacular.

I'm simply exposing logical flaws in accepted myths, correcting misinformation or willful ignorance, and providing more plausible explanations. Hopefully, people will consider empirical evidence and critically think for themselves rather than blindly accepting whatever some religious authority tells them.

Adam and Eve were humans when they were hunter-gatherers.

Early ancestors to humans were hunter gatherers.

They lived in a state of innocence. They lost that state of innocence when they learned to call things good or evil.

So they were in a state of anarchy before then?

Then, after losing theif innocence, they became agriculturalists. Adam was a herder, Cain a planter. Agriculture was the root of all of mankinds problems.

Early humanoids simply learned and developed the principles of agriculture over time. That's likely how our species settled down and stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers.

 

[Schism]

I'm simply exposing logical flaws in accepted myths, correcting misinformation or willful ignorance, and providing more plausible explanations. Hopefully, people will consider empirical evidence and critically think for themselves rather than blindly accepting whatever some religious authority tells them.

Early ancestors to humans were hunter gatherers.

So they were in a state of anarchy before then?

Early humanoids simply learned and developed the principles of agriculture over time. That's likely how our species settled down and stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Thanks for taking the time to convince me that you don't believe any of it.

 

[Sweden]

Adam and Eve were humans when they were hunter-gatherers. They lived in a state of innocence. They lost that state of innocence when they learned to call things good or evil. Then, after losing theif innocence, they became agriculturalists. Adam was a herder, Cain a planter. Agriculture was the root of all of mankinds problems.

Hunter gatherers killed, tortured - and sometimes ate - each other just as readily as anyone who came later. "State of innocence"?

No. I think not.

 

[tosca1]

So the story goes something like this : In the beginning (the Genesis account), after God created the Heavens and the Earth, he made a garden (Eden) on Earth where he proceeded to create the first man, Adam, from dust. Adam was bored and wanted some nookie, so God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve (which makes Eve a transgendered clone of Adam).

Continued...

NOPE! WRONG!
Lol - my goodness! It didn't take that long to find something wrong!

Eve was created female. That's her assigned gender!
You can say she came from the same specie(if you want to invoke science into it). But, you can't say that makes her, "transgendered."

You've got to understand the meaning of "transgender."


Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.[1][2][3]
Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.[4][5]
Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women),
it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer.[2][6][7]

Transgender - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

She can't be said to be a clone, either.


When we look at the Woman (Eve), we find that God took the rib/side (Hebrew: tsela), but built a new person—with new DNA and all.
I can say with confidence that we know that Eve wasn’t a clone because she was female. She had different sex chromosomes (XX) as opposed to Adam’s XY.


If she had the same DNA, they would have both been males. So, God stepped in and specially created Eve—as well as her DNA—to be just as unique as Adam’s.
This means they were both special creations and both made in the image of God, since Eve came from Adam.
Thus, God ingrained the vast majority of information that appears in various people groups today—right from the start.

Shouldn’t Eve Have Been a Clone of Adam?

If God created Eve from Adam’s side, wouldn’t that make her a clone of Adam? Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., explains why this is not the case.

answersingenesis.org

 

[Rumpel]

Did anybody in their right mind ever believed this absurd Adam & Eve story?

I don't think so.

 

[tosca1]

Like I did in Part 1, let's look at the problems associated with the story and examine the evidence. As far as the story goes regarding God creating Adam from dust, if one wants to get reeaalllyy technical about it, that would be an accurate statement, as we are essentially composed of "star dust." All the elements that make us up was formed in stars: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, ect.. Also, whatever happened to the Garden of Eden?But I digress.

The way you carry on about "stars," like as if it makes any difference where dust on earth came from.
Dust is dust.

1. Evolution makes Adam & Eve impossible : According to Genesis, humans appeared suddenly and practically spontaneously, because God. Never mind that one would have to first prove there's a god to make that assertion credible. The lineage of the human species can be traced back millions of years via the fossil record. Fossils show a clear progression from our earliest species ancestors up to what is now modern humans. The Adam & Eve (whom I will abbreviate as A&E) story states that God created them (modern humans) as we are now. But that flies in the face of Evolutionary theory and there's no evidence that God poofed modern humans into existence.

Lol - God created the first couple. And the Bible says, from these two earth got populated.
However we may want to interpret that (whether figuratively, or literally - religiously, or scientifically, creation-wise, or evolution-wise)....................................... science seems to support that too!

Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple ​

A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple

It really is all relative. A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Our communal mom and dad got together after a “cata…

nypost.com

2. Not enough genetic diversity for a viable population : According to the myth, A&E had 3 male offspring. So we have a starting human population composed of 4 males and 1 female. Correction: 3 males and 1 female (Cain and Abel had a, shall we say, falling out). According to some accounts, Cain & Abel had sisters (possibly from Eve, as she is the "mother of all"). So that evens the playing field a little. But now we're left with incestual nookie ( Giggity ) taking place to perpetuate the species. This poses a problem. Between A&E & family, the human population is now bottlenecked. There is not enough genetic diversity to make the species viable. As a result, generations resulting from inbreeding with cause homozygosity, thereby increasing the chances of progressive genetic problems and recessive traits to appear, which will leave an unhealthy population, less ability to adapt t environmental changes, and ultimately resulting in the reduction of biological fitness and the extinction of the species.

Continued...

Lol - supports animals in Noah's Ark, too!


The researchers studied the DNA of five million animals, including humans, to come to their conclusions. They also found that every nine out of 10 animals come from the same original creatures.

The research showed that humans have very low genetic diversity and variants within the species, similar to many other animals.

 

[tosca1]

1. Evolution makes Adam & Eve impossible : According to Genesis, humans appeared suddenly and practically spontaneously, because God. Never mind that one would have to first prove there's a god to make that assertion credible. The lineage of the human species can be traced back millions of years via the fossil record. Fossils show a clear progression from our earliest species ancestors up to what is now modern humans. The Adam & Eve (whom I will abbreviate as A&E) story states that God created them (modern humans) as we are now. But that flies in the face of Evolutionary theory and there's no evidence that God poofed modern humans into existence.

2. Not enough genetic diversity for a viable population : According to the myth, A&E had 3 male offspring. So we have a starting human population composed of 4 males and 1 female. Correction: 3 males and 1 female (Cain and Abel had a, shall we say, falling out). According to some accounts, Cain & Abel had sisters (possibly from Eve, as she is the "mother of all"). So that evens the playing field a little. But now we're left with incestual nookie ( Giggity ) taking place to perpetuate the species. This poses a problem. Between A&E & family, the human population is now bottlenecked. There is not enough genetic diversity to make the species viable. As a result, generations resulting from inbreeding with cause homozygosity, thereby increasing the chances of progressive genetic problems and recessive traits to appear, which will leave an unhealthy population, less ability to adapt t environmental changes, and ultimately resulting in the reduction of biological fitness and the extinction of the species.

Continued...

Isn't it amusing how science refers to the Bible - even by just the symbolism alone?

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered​

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Both men and women can trace their origins to a man and a woman who lived about 135,000 years ago.

www.livescience.com

 

[tosca1]

Continued...

3. Possible death from exposure : Once A&E we're expelled from Eden, they we're left out in the open, lightly clothed, but with no food, no supplies, and no shelter to protect themselves from the elements. Oh yeah, they we're fully mortal too. Sure they now had knowledge and let's assume that knowledge included basic survival skills like building a fire or shelter. They still had no medical care or provisions. Even a minor injury could be fatal, such as an infection from a scratch (I doubt A&E had their vaccinations). It's like if you were to suddenly find yourself deposited in the middle of nowhere with nothing but the clothes you are wearing. Would you be able to survive, let alone reproduce? Let's not forget that before the advent of modern medicine, the maternal/child mortality/morbidity rate was higher than it is today. Eve giving birth to 3 sons is like playing reproductive Russian Roulette. Now, I'm not saying this discredits the A&E story. It is certainly possible that they could have developed the means to continue surviving in the wild. But given the circumstances, the cards were stacked against them.

If we follow the science narrative on evolution - shouldn't they have adapted to their new environment?
Their immune system must've been quite different from ours. Surely, you're not comparing them with our modern world, are you?


The human immune system, that marvel of complexity, subtlety, and sophistication, includes a billion-year-old family of proteins used by bacteria to defend themselves against viruses,
scientists at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and in Israel have discovered.

Human immune system uses ancient family of cell death proteins also found in bacteria

The human immune system, that marvel of complexity, subtlety, and sophistication, includes a billion-year-old family of proteins used by bacteria to defend themselves against viruses, scientists have discovered.

www.sciencedaily.com

How do you know they had no food?

Furthermore, same concept with Noah - if God had meant for them to survive (to have earth populated with them), surely God would have seen to their survival.

4. The A&E story is borrowed from other sources : Many biblical stories are borrowed from other sources and A&E is no different. Much like the Noah's Ark story, the A&E story borrows elements from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Basically, Gilgamesh had a plant of immortality which he lost due to a devious snake. He was also lonely so the gods created a companion for him. Also, a woman comes along and causes them to lose their idyllic lives. Is this starting to sound familiar?

So there we have it. The biggest nails in A&E's coffins is our knowledge of evolution and genetics. A literal 2 individuals could not have produced the entire human species. So perhaps it's best to treat the A&E story for what it is, a story and one which may convey some kind of morality tale. And it works just fine like that. But as a literal story, then it falls apart completely.

.......well, you have demonstrated differently. Looks like you haven't really done some research into this.
My sources seems to provide support for A&E. And, Noah's Ark...........................debunking what you claim.

 

[tosca1]

I'm simply exposing logical flaws in accepted myths, correcting misinformation or willful ignorance, and providing more plausible explanations. Hopefully, people will consider empirical evidence and critically think for themselves rather than blindly accepting whatever some religious authority tells them.

Ironically - what you end up exposing, are your own flaws, and ignorance - willful, or not - on the matter.
I'm telling you, atheism will hold you back from getting out of that box. You're not allowed to think outside of it.

 

[tosca1]

Convincing yourself to spend so much time and energy thinking about things you don't believe in.

It's spectacular.

...except that it's all just thinking on his part, by the looks of it. It's quite limited to boot.
No research was put into it.

 

[tosca1]

Hunter gatherers killed, tortured - and sometimes ate - each other just as readily as anyone who came later. "State of innocence"?

No. I think not.

@Grand Mal


No meat-eating for all creation!


Genesis 1
‘Then God said, Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of the earth, and every tree yielding seed: it shall be food for you;
and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth that has life, I have given every green plant for food: and it was so.’

Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

One must, in humble obedience, simply believe God at His word. God, through His Word, clearly shows that the original, created creatures were to eat only plants.

answersingenesis.org

 

[Daisy]

I'm simply exposing logical flaws

You merely are exposing your own ignorance when it comes to understanding God's Word...

 

[Grand Mal]

Hunter gatherers killed, tortured - and sometimes ate - each other just as readily as anyone who came later. "State of innocence"?

No. I think not.

You say that because Adam and Eve learned the difference between good and evil. That's how they lost their innocence. Before that there was no good or evil.
That's what the Bible says anyway.

 

[Daisy]

Before that there was no good or evil.
That's what the Bible says anyway.

No, it does not...at the end of the 6th creative day, there was only good...

"After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good.+ And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." Genesis 1:31

 

[code1211]

"I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability." --- Oscar Wilde

Welcome to Part 2 of my series exploring the veracity of some biblical stories. If you missed Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark , feel free to check it out and comment, thanks. The focus of this part will be on what is one of the most well known stories within the bible, Adam & Eve. The bible not only begins with Creation and the creation of Adam & Eve, but the story itself has been a significant influence to art, literature, and poetry. One thing to note is that while the story itself is central to the Abrahamistic religions, each religion seems to have a slightly different take on on the story with regards to the details and interpretations or meanings. For this article, I will focus on the "popular" version of the story (We'll ignore the whole Lilith thing) and break it down, looking at any evidence to determine the veracity of the story. As always, comments and thoughts are welcome. Please try to address the points made and remain on topic. Thank you.

So the story goes something like this : In the beginning (the Genesis account), after God created the Heavens and the Earth, he made a garden (Eden) on Earth where he proceeded to create the first man, Adam, from dust. Adam was bored and wanted some nookie, so God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve (which makes Eve a transgendered clone of Adam). So Eve is walking around the Garden when a talking serpent (yes, a talking serpent) convinced Eve to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil (the forbidden tree). It should be noted that God previously told Adam not to eat from that tree. God may be omnipotent, but he's apparently a poor landscape planner. He plants a tree in the garden that he does not want them eating from? That's like someone planting poison ivy in their own garden. It won't go well.

But apparently, Eve didn't get the memo about no fruit eating. So the serpent convinces Eve to eat the fruit from the tree. Eve, naked and holding the fruit, offers it to Adam. Adam, apparently being compelled by the power of boners (what else could possibly compel a guy to disobey God?) due to a naked Eve, eats the fruit too. They gain knowledge, including knowledge of evil, shame, and whatever else. As a result, God curses them, expels them from Eden, has angels guard Eden so they cannot reenter, and shows that he can really hold a grudge. And thus, the rest of the human race is born from them. At least Adam got his nookie.

Like I did in Part 1, let's look at the problems associated with the story and examine the evidence. As far as the story goes regarding God creating Adam from dust, if one wants to get reeaalllyy technical about it, that would be an accurate statement, as we are essentially composed of "star dust." All the elements that make us up was formed in stars: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, ect.. Also, whatever happened to the Garden of Eden?But I digress.

1. Evolution makes Adam & Eve impossible : According to Genesis, humans appeared suddenly and practically spontaneously, because God. Never mind that one would have to first prove there's a god to make that assertion credible. The lineage of the human species can be traced back millions of years via the fossil record. Fossils show a clear progression from our earliest species ancestors up to what is now modern humans. The Adam & Eve (whom I will abbreviate as A&E) story states that God created them (modern humans) as we are now. But that flies in the face of Evolutionary theory and there's no evidence that God poofed modern humans into existence.

2. Not enough genetic diversity for a viable population : According to the myth, A&E had 3 male offspring. So we have a starting human population composed of 4 males and 1 female. Correction: 3 males and 1 female (Cain and Abel had a, shall we say, falling out). According to some accounts, Cain & Abel had sisters (possibly from Eve, as she is the "mother of all"). So that evens the playing field a little. <snip>

(edited for length. sorry)

Your suppositions make your post stupid beyond comprehension.

Still it was entertaining in the same way that any other deliberately deceptive bit of politically misleading comedy might be.

 

[Somerville]

(edited for length. sorry)

Your suppositions make your post stupid beyond comprehension.

Still it was entertaining in the same way that any other deliberately deceptive bit of politically misleading comedy might be.

Science and history are now seen as politically misleading comedy. That is sad and not funny at all.

 

[Gordy327]

NOPE! WRONG!
Lol - my goodness! It didn't take that long to find something wrong!

Eve was created female. That's her assigned gender!
You can say she came from the same specie(if you want to invoke science into it). But, you can't say that makes her, "transgendered."

If Eve was supposedly created (cloned) from Adam's rib, then that would make Eve a genetic copy of Adam, a male. God then changed her gender to female, although she is still genetically male. But if god created Eve as an entirely new individual, then there is no reason for him to use Adam's rib in the first place. God could have created Eve much in the same way as he supposedly created Adam. Either way, the story has holes in it.

The way you carry on about "stars," like as if it makes any difference where dust on earth came from.
Dust is dust.

What you fail to understand is, we are composed of the same common elements as stars. There is nothing special about us, no magic involved.

Lol - God created the first couple. And the Bible says, from these two earth got populated.

That's nice. Prove it!

However we may want to interpret that (whether figuratively, or literally - religiously, or scientifically, creation-wise, or evolution-wise)....................................... science seems to support that too!

No, it does not. Science supports the progressive evolution of ancestor species into modern humans.

Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple ​

A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

The Mitochondrial Eve. That refers to mitochondrial DNA which is passed down maternally, and not humanoid DNA. But mitochondrial Eve is not the first female of a species, but merely the most recent female historically from which all living animals of a species can trace their ancestry.

Lol - supports animals in Noah's Ark, too!

Not even a little. Noah's Ark is pretty much debunked, as my first article showed.

The researchers studied the DNA of five million animals, including humans, to come to their conclusions. They also found that every nine out of 10 animals come from the same original creatures.

It's called ancestor species, which goes back millions of years and not the mere thousands generally attributed to the Noah time scale.

Isn't it amusing how science refers to the Bible - even by just the symbolism alone?

That does not automatically lend any credence to the bible stories themselves though. It's more poetic than anything. The Higgs-Boson is referred to as the "God Particle." But that doesn't mean god had anything to do with it in reality.

If we follow the science narrative on evolution - shouldn't they have adapted to their new environment?
Their immune system must've been quite different from ours. Surely, you're not comparing them with our modern world, are you?

Adaptation is not an instantaneous process. If they lived in an environment free from any germs, their immune system would not be developed or primed enough to counter any infection once they were outside of their controlled environment. We see that effect today in various species and populations when exposed to a foreign organism.

How do you know they had no food?

Were they able to pack up a picnic basket before they were evicted? Even if they carried something with them, it would have been very limited in quantity. They would have had to quickly resort to gathering and scavaging whatever was around.

Furthermore, same concept with Noah - if God had meant for them to survive (to have earth populated with them), surely God would have seen to their survival.

You're presuming to know what god did.

My sources seems to provide support for A&E. And, Noah's Ark...........................debunking what you claim.

Not even a little.

 

[Gordy327]

...except that it's all just thinking on his part, by the looks of it. It's quite limited to boot.
No research was put into it.

I see you didn't bother checking the links I provided.

You merely are exposing your own ignorance when it comes to understanding God's Word...

I don't simply take the word of ancient men with pens at face value. Prove there's a god first!

(edited for length. sorry)

Your suppositions make your post stupid beyond comprehension.

Still it was entertaining in the same way that any other deliberately deceptive bit of politically misleading comedy might be.

When you have no valid rebuttal to make, resort to attacks.

Ironically - what you end up exposing, are your own flaws, and ignorance - willful, or not - on the matter.
I'm telling you, atheism will hold you back from getting out of that box. You're not allowed to think outside of it.

You must be projecting.