[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my mustache that no one has pointed out the fact that the bible was written by human beings who were absolutely clueless about the natural world.

Because I hadn't gotten a chance to point that out yet. It doesn't, however, negate Christianity or evolution (or cause a conflict between the two).

It's disingenuous to believe that were implying evolution in the chapters of genesis the way they were implying ship building in the fairy tale of the flood.

Who knows what they were implying? I think they were taking their best guess at where they came from - they guessed that god did it a certain way, they guessed wrong.

Furthermore, this line of reasoning falls apart when we look at how most Christians treat the rest of the bible because you're establishing a dangerously honest precedent. What you're effectively saying is "a passage in the bible that science has determined to be impossible is likely figurative and doesn't literally mean what it says."

Where is the problem with this? Once again you show that your hatred of religion is premised on your misunderstanding of it.

Even the most atheistic historians agree that the Bible is not a single work but a collection of writings that span thousands of years and many, many different authors. There is no reason to think that because one small part of a canon of works is false that the entire thing is false (unless, of course, your argument has its foundation in sweeping generalizations, cough cough). You are making the same argument that creationists do using Piltdown man - one small misrepresentation disproves the entire canon of thought. No doubt when they make that argument you rail against their "intellectual dishonesty", and I'm sure I could find quotes here where you do exactly that.

However, you still need many critical bits of the bible to be literal for Christianity to work. If you have a figurative fall of man then why do you need a literal savior to sacrifice himself.

Because the "figurative" fall of man is a story to represent the personal sin we all face, which is what the savior delivers us from. This is the message contained in many of the Epistles - following Jesus to save yourself from personal sin. Even as soon as the time of the apostle Paul the creation story in Genesis was being ignored (at least by him).

For that matter, how can you claim that Jesus came back from the dead? Isn't coming back from the dead every bit as impossible as the Earth forming in a day or Noah building an entire ark with his bare hands?

Care to share the logic upon which you base this?
A =/= B
A = false, therefore B = false ???